(OT) College Hockey Rule Changes

[shrader]

Recently, an NCAA committee submitted a list of rule changes for college hockey. They still need to be approved, but it sounds like that is just a formality. Here is the most significant of what's in there:

 

-A hybrid icing system that is a combination of the no touch icing that college currently uses and the NHL's touch up icing. Icing can be waived off if an attacking forward is closer to the puck than the D.

-Icing will still be called when a team is shorthanded.

-Powerplays are still awarded even if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty. (remember that discussion Taro?)

-Contact to the head penalties will result in at least a major penalty.

 

 

Could the NHL be keeping a close eye on this one next year? The hybrid icing idea gets thrown around all the time and I think it's a matter of time before the NHL moves in that direction. The contact to the head issue is obviously a big one in the NHL too. I'm sure the NCAA will be a bit selective in what kind of hit warrants that call, but it is a step in the right direction.

 

I think the really interesting ones are the ones intended to increase scoring, specifically on the powerplay. No longer allowing icing on a penalty kill could be brutal. If that the already existing rule about no line changes after an icing is coupled with that, you're going to see some awfully tired PKers on the ice. I think it could have the opposite effect of what the NCAA wants though. It could actually slow the game down even more. The team on the kill is still going to ice the puck, so we could see a lot more stoppages in play.

 

Thoughts?

[MattPie]

I think the really interesting ones are the ones intended to increase scoring, specifically on the powerplay. No longer allowing icing on a penalty kill could be brutal. If that the already existing rule about no line changes after an icing is coupled with that, you're going to see some awfully tired PKers on the ice. I think it could have the opposite effect of what the NCAA wants though. It could actually slow the game down even more. The team on the kill is still going to ice the puck, so we could see a lot more stoppages in play.

 

I'm surprised you don't see it more often, but after the first icing, if you get the puck back relatively quickly you might as well ice it again and get some extra stoppage time.

[shrader]

I'm surprised you don't see it more often, but after the first icing, if you get the puck back relatively quickly you might as well ice it again and get some extra stoppage time.

 

It's definitely an idea that was thrown around quite a bit when the NHL first made that change. I'd say it happens quite a bit. The team has to actually win the faceoff in order to do it, so that limits the likelihood a bit, but it definitely happens.

[Stoner]

When is the NHL going to give its coaches the option of declining a penalty? I'd love for Ruff to have that option, and he'd be justified in using it, I bet, 40 times a season.

[nobody]

-Powerplays are still awarded even if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty. (remember that discussion Taro?)

 

 

 

I like this one a bunch.

[shrader]

I like this one a bunch.

 

Yeah, I've never fully understood that one. When you score on a delayed penalty, it is still an even strength goal. Why did it cancel out the penalty? They have always treated it like it was a powerplay already, yet it didn't count as a powerplay goal and the PIMs were never actually charged to the player.

[nobody]

Yeah, I've never fully understood that one. When you score on a delayed penalty, it is still an even strength goal. Why did it cancel out the penalty? They have always treated it like it was a powerplay already, yet it didn't count as a powerplay goal and the PIMs were never actually charged to the player.

 

 

Well, it is slightly better then an even strength situation since you can pull your goalie with very little chance of getting scored on. They should at least count it as a power play goal.