Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

According to INCH:

http://insidecollegehockey.com/inch/201 ... ots-icing/

The NCAA Ice Hockey Committee has proposed a series of rule changes that, if approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Committee in July, would go in effect for the 2010-11 season. The proposals are:

* Enhancement to the contact to the head rule to include a minimum of a five-minute major penalty and either a game misconduct or game disqualification penalty

* Enforcement of icing at all times, including while a team is shorthanded

* Modification of the no-touch icing rule to wave off icing if an official determines that an attacking player would reach the puck before a defending player

* Alteration of the delayed penalty rule to provide the offensive team with a power play even if a goal was scored during the delay

* Changing which end each team defends during an overtime period (goaltenders would now switch ends after the third period)

The committee also addressed a proposal that called for allowing half-shield visors instead of full facemasks, but determined that more scientific data was needed before a proposal could be made.

Some of these rule changes are really stupid. For example, the shorthanded team has always used icing as a defensive strategy during power plays. If you remove that, then the defense has no chance of killing a power play. Also, why would they mess with the delayed penalty rule? Is it the goal of college sports to try to change their game so much that the jump to the pros becomes this huge leap?

They need to allow fighting as a roughing minor for two conflicts a game, then it is a game misconduct.

Falcon Fanatic wrote:According to INCH:

http://insidecollegehockey.com/inch/201 ... ots-icing/

The NCAA Ice Hockey Committee has proposed a series of rule changes that, if approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Committee in July, would go in effect for the 2010-11 season. The proposals are:

* Enhancement to the contact to the head rule to include a minimum of a five-minute major penalty and either a game misconduct or game disqualification penalty

* Enforcement of icing at all times, including while a team is shorthanded

* Modification of the no-touch icing rule to wave off icing if an official determines that an attacking player would reach the puck before a defending player

* Alteration of the delayed penalty rule to provide the offensive team with a power play even if a goal was scored during the delay

* Changing which end each team defends during an overtime period (goaltenders would now switch ends after the third period)

The committee also addressed a proposal that called for allowing half-shield visors instead of full facemasks, but determined that more scientific data was needed before a proposal could be made.

If the contact-to-the-head rule is changed, you're going to see the elimination of the call. Instead of hearing "contact to the head, elbowing" you're just gonna hear "elbowing." Which I find ironic considering that's what the penalty is anyways.

Icing at all times has been discussed in the NHL for years. I wouldn't have a problem if it was slightly modified to icing when the other team has an empty net. That would make sense to me.

Modifying the no touch icing rule should only eliminate the "no touch" part. The linesmen can't consistenly call the current icing rule, so why give them even more judgement?

I'm kind of torn on the delayed penalty rule. On one hand I can see still calling the penalty if the non-penalized team didn't pull their goal for an extra attacker. A penalty gives you a man advantage, if you pull the goalie, you have a man advantage. The other way I see it is why kick a team that is down? It could be a great rallying point for a team, but at the same time it could completely destroy the other. I don't like the change.

Goaltenders switch ends for overtime? Unless they're playing a full 20 minute overtime it's just more worthless words in the rulebook. I'm just glad there is no mention of 4 on 4 overtimes.

I disagree with you on the switching ends, that makes sense. it is a new period and the defended end should change, which makes line changes somewhat more difficult and creates more opurtunity. I wish the CCHA would do away with the shoot out.

I'm not excited about the proposed icing rule... not being able to ice during kills is a STUPID idea. I never like it in international rules, and it failed miserably when the CCHA experimented with it a few years back (exhibition only games). Boo!

jg4242 wrote:I'm not excited about the proposed icing rule... not being able to ice during kills is a STUPID idea. I never like it in international rules, and it failed miserably when the CCHA experimented with it a few years back (exhibition only games). Boo!

+1

the reason they are doing it is to open the game up and increase scoring chances...I dont care for it one way or the other to be honest, its just a new rule to learn and one that will trickle down the ranks and will confuse fans for a while.

Yeah, and it will be one more stupid rule difference separating college hockey from the NHL... thus causing more players to go to the CHL or sit in the AHL to develop. It's hard enough to compete for talent with major juniors, why is the NCAA making even harder by continuing to separate the college game from the professional?

Oh wait, I know: Because there is no one on the rule proposal committee who is even involved in a major program. There is ONE assistant coach from a D1 hockey school... the rest are from D2, D3, and women's programs. I guarantee that if Red Berenson, Jerry York, or any D1 head coach were on that committee, this would NEVER have gotten through.

Once upon a time didn't they make the player sit out the penalty even if the other team scored on the delayed call, but without making the team play short-handed? I seem to recall that from the 80s or early 90s.

I could live with the altered no touch icing but the rest of those ideas are horrible.

Who do I write to urge the defeat of these proposals?

I think the right team could make the icing rule really work to their advantage. Might also prevent teams trying to get empty-net goals from flinging it down the ice. It might also help defensive teams on penalties get the whistle blown at times that they need it, where now they can clear the puck, but still get pinned in their zone as the attacking team responds fast enough.

But again, depends on who has the best plan, learns to exploit the change best. The short experiments used before are not going to reveal that.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2 ... wicing.php

The latest is that the rule about no icing on the PK is likely to be reversed.

Apprently College Hockey Coaches threw a fit and have been contacting Karr, NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee Chair and AD up in Alaska Fairbanks. More conference calls over the next few days with coaches, and all five DI Hockey Conf Commissioners.

The Above article also mentions the CCHA shoot is likely to be reversed and back to the NCAA standard OT format. I was hoping for a shootout NCAA-wide but they decided not to change anything.

Did anyone hear the final result of these proposed changes?

the icing while shorthanded rule is totally a bunk idea. That would really slow the game down...