NHL rule changes

[spndnchz]

Wednesday the NHL endorsed rule changes regarding faceoofs after penalties, icing, goaltender equipment coming down the pike.

linky Me likey.

 

The first change will be for Rule 76.2 on faceoffs, placing the first faceoff of a power play in the defending zone of the team that committed the foul.

 

Second, a change to Rule 81.1 on icing will state that, "Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player."

 

The last change will be to Rule 85.5 on faceoff location, saying that if a puck is shot off the goal frame, goal post or crossbar, the subsequent faceoff will remain in the end zone where the puck went out of play.

[stenbaro]

Wednesday the NHL endorsed rule changes regarding faceoofs after penalties, icing, goaltender equipment coming down the pike.

linky Me likey.

 

The first change will be for Rule 76.2 on faceoffs, placing the first faceoff of a power play in the defending zone of the team that committed the foul.

 

Second, a change to Rule 81.1 on icing will state that, "Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player."

 

The last change will be to Rule 85.5 on faceoff location, saying that if a puck is shot off the goal frame, goal post or crossbar, the subsequent faceoff will remain in the end zone where the puck went out of play.

They are all pretty reasonable rule changes..I will be shocked if the second rule change gets enforced come playoff time..I saw more interference in the playoffs this past yr than I can recall. I cant imagine that changing for this rule change..

[BetweenThePipes00]

They are all pretty reasonable rule changes..I will be shocked if the second rule change gets enforced come playoff time..I saw more interference in the playoffs this past yr than I can recall. I cant imagine that changing for this rule change..

Well I think what you are describing is in non-icing situations, the defenseman playing the man first going into the corner ... nothing is going to change there, I agree, they are going to let defenseman play the body first if the puck is close by ...

I think this is, in theory, a good compromise instead of going to no-touch icing ... at least now, again in theory, if a defenseman is racing back to get the icing and has position, the forward can't just shove him in the back and send him flying into the boards with no attempt to actually touch the puck ... again, it's all about how they enforce it, but maybe it makes the forwards think twice before taking a free shot when they have no real chance at the puck.

[nucci]

Wednesday the NHL endorsed rule changes regarding faceoofs after penalties, icing, goaltender equipment coming down the pike.

linky Me likey.

 

The first change will be for Rule 76.2 on faceoffs, placing the first faceoff of a power play in the defending zone of the team that committed the foul.

 

Second, a change to Rule 81.1 on icing will state that, "Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player."

 

The last change will be to Rule 85.5 on faceoff location, saying that if a puck is shot off the goal frame, goal post or crossbar, the subsequent faceoff will remain in the end zone where the puck went out of play.

If they changed that to WILL result in penalties, it would make more sense.

[That Aud Smell]

"could result in penalties"?! i'm sure

takes great solace in that strongly-worded change. (as the notes to the clip explain: there was a penalty called on that play.)

 

imho, the failure to get right with icing is a joke. i understand the resistance to no-touch, but they need to be institute rules that more clearly protect the defending player who's trying to ice the puck.

[That Aud Smell]

If they changed that to WILL result in penalties, it would make more sense.

true, that - "could" leaves it to refs' capric---i mean, discretion. :death:

 

they should change the rule so that a player in the offensive zone is only permitted to attempt to make a play on the puck -- the train wrecks need to end ... before someone gets killed.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Good God I didn't even notice that ... only in the NHL can they make a rule that's not a rule ... it COULD result in a penalty?!? Is the whole rulebook written this way ... does it say the puck must precede the players across the attacking blue line or it COULD result in an offside? make a rule and enforce it!

[stenbaro]

Well I think what you are describing is in non-icing situations, the defenseman playing the man first going into the corner ... nothing is going to change there, I agree, they are going to let defenseman play the body first if the puck is close by ...

I think this is, in theory, a good compromise instead of going to no-touch icing ... at least now, again in theory, if a defenseman is racing back to get the icing and has position, the forward can't just shove him in the back and send him flying into the boards with no attempt to actually touch the puck ... again, it's all about how they enforce it, but maybe it makes the forwards think twice before taking a free shot when they have no real chance at the puck.

You are correct, I think the interference call should be called a whole lot more when the puck carrier dumps the puck in the corner and the d man plays the forward going after the puck rather than playing the puck. I would think they should equate the icing interference to dump and chase interference as well..Well better put would be "I wish"

[nucci]

true, that - "could" leaves it to refs' capric---i mean, discretion. :death:

 

they should change the rule so that a player in the offensive zone is only permitted to attempt to make a play on the puck -- the train wrecks need to end ... before someone gets killed.

Agreed. I do not like no-touch icing. I went to the Amerks game in Buffalo during the lockout and the no-touch rule made the game slower. They need to go back to playing the puck on icing calls.

[X. Benedict]

These all seem like very sensible changes to me. :thumbsup:

[Bmwolf21]

"could result in penalties"?! i'm sure

takes great solace in that strongly-worded change. (as the notes to the clip explain: there was a penalty called on that play.)

 

imho, the failure to get right with icing is a joke. i understand the resistance to no-touch, but they need to be institute rules that more clearly protect the defending player who's trying to ice the puck.

I'd like to see the NHL go to something like the hybrid no-touch icing being used in the USHL:

 

In the USHL, a linesman must make a judgment call on any potential icing. If the defending player gets to the faceoff dot or hash marks first or the defender and the attacker arrive there in a dead heat, the whistle is blown immediately for automatic icing.

 

But if the attacking player has any advantage at all on the defender at the dot, the linesman keeps the play alive and lets the race play itself out.

[shrader]

I'm not so crazy about the first faceoff on a powerplay being in the offensive zone rule. I can think of plenty of scenarios where it doesn't seem like the right move.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I'd like to see the NHL go to something like the hybrid no-touch icing being used in the USHL:

 

In the USHL, a linesman must make a judgment call on any potential icing. If the defending player gets to the faceoff dot or hash marks first or the defender and the attacker arrive there in a dead heat, the whistle is blown immediately for automatic icing.

 

But if the attacking player has any advantage at all on the defender at the dot, the linesman keeps the play alive and lets the race play itself out.

 

Well if it is a dead heat, I'd want it to continue ... odds are the attacking player is getting ready to pass the slower defenseman at that point ... but other than that it's not a horrible rule. It's a judgement call, but apparently so is the rule they just put in since it COULD result in a penalty, entirely at the discretion of the ref .. who, by the way, will NOT have a good angle of such a play because I doubt the ref is going to beat the players chasing the puck down the ice.

[shrader]

How exactly is that icing rule a change anyway? Last time I checked there's this rule in the books called "interference". Yeah, they don't enforce it, but that is exactly what this icing rule is.

[Bmwolf21]

Well if it is a dead heat, I'd want it to continue ... odds are the attacking player is getting ready to pass the slower defenseman at that point ... but other than that it's not a horrible rule. It's a judgement call, but apparently so is the rule they just put in since it COULD result in a penalty, entirely at the discretion of the ref .. who, by the way, will NOT have a good angle of such a play because I doubt the ref is going to beat the players chasing the puck down the ice.

The fact is they're talking about fixed point(s) on the ice - the hash marks or the faceoff dot - so I don't see the linesman's position as a big deal. They can probably pretty accurately tell who gets to the dot or hash marks pretty consistently without standing at the "finish line" to determine who is leading. If they are unsure they can err on the side of safety, which I have no problem with. Heck one of my biggest gripes in the last couple seasons is the number of times we've seen linesmen blow icing touches because they can't get in position behind the goal line fast enough to see the sticks.

 

The other is question is what are the odds that the attacking player is going to pass the defender if they are in a dead heat at the hash marks? Honestly, going back over the last few years I can recall only a handful of instances where an attacking player has blown past a defender to clearly beat the icing. (Excluding the plays where an attacking player is a step late but swings his stick wildly while the defender is trying not to slam into the wall.)

[BetweenThePipes00]

The fact is they're talking about fixed point(s) on the ice - the hash marks or the faceoff dot - so I don't see the linesman's position as a big deal. They can probably pretty accurately tell who gets to the dot or hash marks pretty consistently without standing at the "finish line" to determine who is leading. If they are unsure they can err on the side of safety, which I have no problem with. Heck one of my biggest gripes in the last couple seasons is the number of times we've seen linesmen blow icing touches because they can't get in position behind the goal line fast enough to see the sticks.

Sorry if I was not clear, I was taking issue with the new NHL rule, not your suggestion ... my point was I like this rule for the reasons you state (fixed spot on ice, linesman already used to racing back to see who touches first) and don't like the NHL rule that COULD result in a penalty at the discretion of the ref, because the ref is not in position to make a good judgement if something is a dangerous play or not.

 

The other is question is what are the odds that the attacking player is going to pass the defender if they are in a dead heat at the hash marks? Honestly, going back over the last few years I can recall only a handful of instances where an attacking player has blown past a defender to clearly beat the icing. (Excluding the plays where an attacking player is a step late but swings his stick wildly while the defender is trying not to slam into the wall.)

Fair enough ... maybe it does not happen often but I think to get something like this pushed through you have to satisfy the old guard as much as possible ... blowing down a dead heat will be looked at as taking away the chance for a physical battle ... if it is a dead heat, the attacking player may not blow by but at least he goes for the puck ... the most dangerous plays are the ones where he is clearly behind and his only hope is a dangerous play, which your suggestion would eliminate.

[Bmwolf21]

Sorry if I was not clear, I was taking issue with the new NHL rule, not your suggestion ... my point was I like this rule for the reasons you state (fixed spot on ice, linesman already used to racing back to see who touches first) and don't like the NHL rule that COULD result in a penalty at the discretion of the ref, because the ref is not in position to make a good judgement if something is a dangerous play or not.

Gotcha.

Fair enough ... maybe it does not happen often but I think to get something like this pushed through you have to satisfy the old guard as much as possible ... blowing down a dead heat will be looked at as taking away the chance for a physical battle ... if it is a dead heat, the attacking player may not blow by but at least he goes for the puck ... the most dangerous plays are the ones where he is clearly behind and his only hope is a dangerous play, which your suggestion would eliminate.

True, and it's sad that the "old guard" has to be placated this way. But the quote from the TSN story I linked earlier pretty much sums up the NHL's "oh well" attitude:

 

In fact, a few were downright testy that the question was even being posed, given that it has been rejected time after time at annual general managers' meetings.

 

"Do we have to make a rule change every time someone gets hurt?" one GM said.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Like Smell said, what will their reaction be when someone breaks their neck?

"Do we have to make a rule change every time someone gets killed?"

[That Aud Smell]

it's sad that the "old guard" has to be placated this way.[/i]

sheesh - no one's more old guard than

 

"Do we have to make a rule change every time someone gets killed?"

like cherry recalled in the clip linked above: it already happened overseas.

[Taro T]

How exactly is that icing rule a change anyway? Last time I checked there's this rule in the books called "interference". Yeah, they don't enforce it, but that is exactly what this icing rule is.

It reads to me like they are saying the players have to be playing the puck, not the man, in an icing situation. Basically, I'm interpreting it as they are making it "no check" icing. Interference would be tying up or hitting the guy before he gets the puck. Under the current system, as soon as the D-man has touched the puck he can get checked into next Tuesday provided the hit isn't a charge or square in the back. It appears that solid check on the D-man when he is vulnerable is what they "COULD" be eliminating.

 

Maybe they are using the "could" in the rule to cover the situation where a guy swipes his stick at the puck and gets the puck 1st but then nearly automatically takes the other guys skates out with the follow through. That technically isn't a trip, but with a guy going full speed towards the boards can mess him up pretty well.

 

I don't see the intent of the rule as a bad thing. I find using the word "could" as being patently ridiculous.

[X. Benedict]

It reads to me like they are saying the players have to be playing the puck, not the man, in an icing situation. Basically, I'm interpreting it as they are making it "no check" icing. Interference would be tying up or hitting the guy before he gets the puck. Under the current system, as soon as the D-man has touched the puck he can get checked into next Tuesday provided the hit isn't a charge or square in the back. It appears that solid check on the D-man when he is vulnerable is what they "COULD" be eliminating.

 

Maybe they are using the "could" in the rule to cover the situation where a guy swipes his stick at the puck and gets the puck 1st but then nearly automatically takes the other guys skates out with the follow through. That technically isn't a trip, but with a guy going full speed towards the boards can mess him up pretty well.

 

I don't see the intent of the rule as a bad thing. I find using the word "could" as being patently ridiculous.

 

Rules should never have the word "could"

[shrader]

Yeah, the intent is fine, but the actual enforcement is the major question, given their incredible track record with the rules already in place. The "could" already looks like a built in excuse for that.

[Taro T]

Yeah, the intent is fine, but the actual enforcement is the major question, given their incredible track record with the rules already in place. The "could" already looks like a built in excuse for that.

Absolutely.

 

My point was just that they are addressing an issue that interference typically doesn't cover.