Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Touch Icing


  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. What Should the NHL Do About Icing

    • Keep It The Same
      12
    • Go No-Touch
      8
    • Hybrid Solution
      6


Recommended Posts

Guest Dintrox12

One of the argument presented by TSN ( Pierre, Duthie, ans McKenzie) were as for GMs for current icing system "GMs don't play the game" ... many GM the habs own BG, holmgren of the Flyers, Sather of NYR, and Lowe Oilers are all veteran players ... note still don't know how to count the Stars --- Hull (veteran) jackson(No) ...If I counted all out of 31 ... 17 have at least 1 game of NHL game experience...

Team Gm Nhl player?

NJ Devils GM Lou Lamoriello no

Islanders Garth Snow yes

Rangers Sather yes

Flyers holmgren yes

Penguins shero no

Bruins Peter Chiarelli no

Buffalo Regier yes technically only played in 26 nhl games

Habs Gainey yes

Sens Murray no

leafs Fletcher no

Thrashers waddell no ( one game in NHL)

Canes Rutherford yes

Panthers Martin no

bolts Feaster no

caps McPhee yes

Blackhawks Tallon yes

Columbus Howson yes about 18 games

Detroit Holland yes 2 seasons only 4 games

preds Poile n

oBlues Pleau yes

Flames Sutter yes

Avs Giguere no

Oilers Lowe yes

Wild Risebrough yes

Canucks Nonis no

Ducks Burke no

Stars Hull yes Jackson no

Kings Lombardi no

Coyotes Maloney yes

sharks Wilson yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ComeBackStanley
if you're proposing the elimination of icing completely, I think that would be absolutely horrible... what I think would happen is once a defending team feels any pressure at all they would 'ice' the puck and even though the goalie could play it and get it back up to center quickly, the attacking team still has to exit the zone so the defenders have a chance to just line up across the blue line and the attackers would have a problem getting into the zone again... if they try to dump it in, the defending goalie or the first defender back would just fire it right back out again, and repeat for 60 minutes... it'd be AWFUL!

in fact, one of the things that has actually worked out the way they planned it is the increased scoring opportunites when teams that ice the puck can't make a line change... remove icing and it's 'penalty' and it'd kill the game...

Ping pong anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it even more than the touch icing. The last thing we need is to put more in the linesmen and referees`judgement!

I understand with the inconsistent reffing the reluctance to place another thing on their plates. However, linesmen are already responsible for watching icings, they'd just be doing it slightly differently. Mistakes already happen, and while I get that there would be a few controversial calls, overall I think it would work pretty smoothly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest privateserver

Hybird solution:"To be honest," Brand said, "I love touch icing. I am not a big fan of no-touch icing. So I was highly motivated to see if we couldn't come up with an alternative, some sort of compromise to keep everyone happy."And that is precisely what he did.

This season the USHL introduced a hybrid form of no-touch icing. It works likes this:

On any potential icing, the linesman has to make a decision by the time the first player or players are crossing an imaginary line that runs across the rink and right through the end-zone faceoff dots and hash marks, or around 25 feet from the end boards.

If the defending player is the first to hit the dots or hash marks, the linesman immediately blows the whistle for automatic no-touch icing. The player does not have to even retrieve the puck

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=232516

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Madhabbler
if you're proposing the elimination of icing completely, I think that would be absolutely horrible... what I think would happen is once a defending team feels any pressure at all they would 'ice' the puck and even though the goalie could play it and get it back up to center quickly, the attacking team still has to exit the zone so the defenders have a chance to just line up across the blue line and the attackers would have a problem getting into the zone again... if they try to dump it in, the defending goalie or the first defender back would just fire it right back out again, and repeat for 60 minutes... it'd be AWFUL!

in fact, one of the things that has actually worked out the way they planned it is the increased scoring opportunites when teams that ice the puck can't make a line change... remove icing and it's 'penalty' and it'd kill the game...

well thats maybe what would happen i say it would open the game up for some amazing hockey unless the players really do what ur saying but i think they would have alot of odd man rushes i dont knowwe would have to watch a game before we judge it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand with the inconsistent reffing the reluctance to place another thing on their plates. However, linesmen are already responsible for watching icings, they'd just be doing it slightly differently. Mistakes already happen, and while I get that there would be a few controversial calls, overall I think it would work pretty smoothly.

Actually Graeme, we must not be watching the same games. Linesmen are responsible to call icing and off-sides, as well as the odd penalty and it's enough on their plates. One rule that was implemented recently was for them to judge if an icing was actually meant to be a pass. They're missing the boat on that as well... The last thing I want is to add to their judgment calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wayne
well thats maybe what would happen i say it would open the game up for some amazing hockey unless the players really do what ur saying but i think they would have alot of odd man rushes i dont knowwe would have to watch a game before we judge it
no maybe about it, teams ice the puck now, when they know the face-off will come back into their end and they won't be able to change lines, take away those 'penalties' and why wouldn't they do it constantly?... you might as well save 2 hours and go straight to the shoot-out...I guarantee if a team is somehow able to score a goal, they'll spend the rest of the game spread across the blueline, constantly firing the puck down the ice... why wouldn't they, it would guarantee the win...and you think fans will pay to watch this stuff?...
Actually Graeme, we must not be watching the same games. Linesmen are responsible to call icing and off-sides, as well as the odd penalty and it's enough on their plates. One rule that was implemented recently was for them to judge if an icing was actually meant to be a pass. They're missing the boat on that as well... The last thing I want is to add to their judgment calls.
considering I doubt most fans can explain the criteria for judging an attempted pass -- it is NOT as straightforward as simple 'intent' -- I wouldn't be so quick to blame the officials...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Graeme, we must not be watching the same games.

Was that really necessary?

Linesmen are responsible to call icing and off-sides, as well as the odd penalty and it's enough on their plates. One rule that was implemented recently was for them to judge if an icing was actually meant to be a pass. They're missing the boat on that as well... The last thing I want is to add to their judgment calls.

The difference with that is you are asking them to judge intent: "was he trying to pass it?" which can be difficult unless they can read minds. In this case you'd just be asking "is there a reasonable chance the offensive player will get to the puck first".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest powerplay2009

i think that if you get injured chasing a puck, you dont deserve to be in the nhl. i could chase a puck and not get injured.keep it the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another couple of options discussed on HNIC:

- instead of having to get to the puck, make it the same but the decision happens based on first player (or his stick) to the goal line. This gives them more time and space between themselves and the end boards and also the two players don't have to compete side by side - they can get cross the goal line at any part of the rink - one player could cross it by the net, the other in the corner.

- keep icing the same, but make any contact clearly against the rules (currently interference could often apply to the races, but rarely does)

I really like the first option, I think we'd still have exciting races and icing wouldn't be automatic, but it also doesn't leave more in the hands of the linseman and should cut 90% of injuries out of icing races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wayne
Another couple of options discussed on HNIC:

- instead of having to get to the puck, make it the same but the decision happens based on first player (or his stick) to the goal line. This gives them more time and space between themselves and the end boards and also the two players don't have to compete side by side - they can get cross the goal line at any part of the rink - one player could cross it by the net, the other in the corner.

- keep icing the same, but make any contact clearly against the rules (currently interference could often apply to the races, but rarely does)

I really like the first option, I think we'd still have exciting races and icing wouldn't be automatic, but it also doesn't leave more in the hands of the linseman and should cut 90% of injuries out of icing races.

the problem with the first idea is the defender better be sure he can get the icing call or he could find himself nearer the corner while the attacker has the puck near the goal, e.g. if the race develops with the defender coming off the point in the offensive zone and the attacker chasing a break-out pass... but if the defender is that much quicker or in a better position than the attacker, would there have been an incident anyway?...

I think after a while many defenders won't take the chance and would still try to beat the attacker to where the puck is, so even if they lose the race, they can still make a play... actually, it wouldn't necessarily help an attacker to eliminate the icing if he's not near the puck, it just means there wouldn't be a whistle and he could find himself caught up ice if the defender gets the puck first and quickly breaks out of the zone...

I think that's the problem with a lot of these proposed solutions, no matter what, the players are going to want/need to be where the puck is in case there is no icing, so they're going to race hard to that point regardless UNLESS they know there is no point, i.e. no-touch... some of the proposals which have the play determined earlier will stop the close races if icing is called sooner, but don't do anything if icing is waved off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that the best option is the no-touch icing. Teams, especially at the end of a game, who try to kill off the clock by icing the puck would be penalized even more in having another 4-5 seconds on the clock as the whisle would be blow immediately. Hybrid? No way Jose! It's been proven over and over again that the more you add to people's judgement, the least effective it is. KISS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not be stupid. In what instance would you not call the no touch icing? The instance where there was a battle for the puck? If thats the case and I cant see what other case there would be, thats why the rule needs to be changed in the first place. The whole reasoning for NO TOUCH ICING is to avoid injuries. So lets do it just like the Euros!

For example, a breakaway pass that a player misses; if he's clear of the defenders, touch icing would negate the chance if he could easily get to it first. That's why. Although I do agree with JL, the more of a chance for human error you create, the worse things are.

Maybe they should try it out in the AHL for a while first (like they have with some other recent rule changes) to see if it flies with the players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to no-touch icing. This is a complete no-brainer to me. They do it in junior and in international play. Honestly, how many times per season does beating out an icing even occur, let alone have a significant impact on the game? Is the game going to be drastically different because icing is automatic? I don't get why people are so up in arms in defense of a minor, annoying rule that barely impacts the game except when it results in players getting seriously injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wayne

well, I don't know if this is a first, but I don't think it has happened in a while, I'm changing my mind on a matter of opinion :blink: (not fact, I've been wrong and corrected myself if I've gotten a fact wrong): I'm now in favour of a hybrid system -- slightly varied from the one Bob describes as the one the USHL uses...

actually, I think Bob's description of it so confused me at first, it caused me not to like it... instead, think of it like this:

the default is no-touch icing, except in the one situation of the attacker having an advantage over the defender at the determination line, in which case the icing is waived off... the result is the only time there is a 'race' right to the end boards is when the attacker is clearly ahead...

a summary of situations:

1) the defender has an advantage at the determination line and icing is called immediately, the argument being he would get there first anyway to get the icing call...

2) the attacker has an advantage at the determination line and icing is waived off, the argument being he would get there first anyway to negate the icing call...

3) neither has an advantage at the determination line and icing is called immediately, the argument being to stop the race to the endboards for safety reasons...

my variation would be not to use a single line to determine the icing but two lines... the one the USHL uses through the face-off circle, which I'll use as the 'defender's line', and one more line maybe 3 or 4' (about one full stride?) closer to the goal line, called the 'attacker's line'... the default is no-touch icing, which is negated only if the attacker reaches his line by the time the defender reaches his line (tie, or anything close, goes to the attacker)... basically, it's no-touch icing unless the attacker has at least a stride lead on the defender... no 'judgement' as to whether the attacker has an advantage if he's skating fast and the defender is practically standing still, he must actually have a real lead... would using two lines solve the 'judgement' issue for some of you?...

btw, the guys on the NHL Officials board, specifically Jean Morin, prefer the current system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FlHabsFan

With so many people sliding or crashing into the boards at full speed, its only a matter of time before someone has a career ending or terminal accident. With new technology, skaters are going faster then ever. However, the human body is still the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, your scenario makes a lot of sense to me, but I still don't quite understand why we should fight so hard to keep something in the game (touch icing, at least in certain circumstances) that has virtually no impact on the on-ice product, except to seriously injure players. Again, the number of times per season when a player beats an icing can be counted on one hand. And the number of times beating an icing has a quantitative impact on the game (e.g. resulting in a goal or drawing a penalty) can be counted on one hand minus your thumb and your pinky. :)

What would change if we went to no-touch icing? Would the product be that drastically affected? Frankly, would it even be affected at all? If anything, it would take currently 'dead' seconds -- that occur while the defender is chasing down the iced puck before the whistle is blown -- and make those seconds 'live' again by adding them after the ensuing faceoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest thefooligan5
well, I don't know if this is a first, but I don't think it has happened in a while, I'm changing my mind on a matter of opinion :blink: (not fact, I've been wrong and corrected myself if I've gotten a fact wrong): I'm now in favour of a hybrid system -- slightly varied from the one Bob describes as the one the USHL uses...

actually, I think Bob's description of it so confused me at first, it caused me not to like it... instead, think of it like this:

the default is no-touch icing, except in the one situation of the attacker having an advantage over the defender at the determination line, in which case the icing is waived off... the result is the only time there is a 'race' right to the end boards is when the attacker is clearly ahead...

a summary of situations:

1) the defender has an advantage at the determination line and icing is called immediately, the argument being he would get there first anyway to get the icing call...

2) the attacker has an advantage at the determination line and icing is waived off, the argument being he would get there first anyway to negate the icing call...

3) neither has an advantage at the determination line and icing is called immediately, the argument being to stop the race to the endboards for safety reasons...

my variation would be not to use a single line to determine the icing but two lines... the one the USHL uses through the face-off circle, which I'll use as the 'defender's line', and one more line maybe 3 or 4' (about one full stride?) closer to the goal line, called the 'attacker's line'... the default is no-touch icing, which is negated only if the attacker reaches his line by the time the defender reaches his line (tie, or anything close, goes to the attacker)... basically, it's no-touch icing unless the attacker has at least a stride lead on the defender... no 'judgement' as to whether the attacker has an advantage if he's skating fast and the defender is practically standing still, he must actually have a real lead... would using two lines solve the 'judgement' issue for some of you?...

btw, the guys on the NHL Officials board, specifically Jean Morin, prefer the current system...

I have to ask, what would be considered as 'having an advantage' at the determination line? Is it only when both players are facing the same direction? Could a defender have an advantage even though he has yet to turn around yet the offense is already skating forwards? I tend to agree with JL in that I think a hybrid system lends itself to controversy and diminished quality by letting the linesmen decide what is or is not icing. Even the present system (touch-icing) can lead to controversial decisions by the linesmen (or ref ... not sure who makes that call). Yet one thing I find funny is that even though a decision may not appear to be correct according to the players on the ice, they tend not to argue much which would lead me to believe that they do not care quite as much. This is probably due to the fact that a goal is not guaranteed should the offender win the race and touch the puck first. Heck, it isn't even a given that the offender will hold onto the puck for more than a second after winning the race.

I think a no-touch icing policy would be the best option. It takes unnecessary responsibility out of the hands of the officials which will only better the game and it will also increase the overall length of the playing time of a game. No longer will we be losing those 2-3 seconds during which the players race for the puck. This may not seem like much but it is another method of punishing the defenders for icing the puck in the waning seconds of the game. Whereas in the present system a player can ice the puck with 5 seconds or so left on the clock and really suffer no substantial consequences. But with no-touch icing that puck will be back in their zone with 4 seconds on the clock. This will force players to handle the puck as opposed to simply throwing it away.

I'm also confused as to why the GMs have shelved this topic for the next three seasons. I feel bad for the players who will be injured due to touch-icing during that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wayne
I have to ask, what would be considered as 'having an advantage' at the determination line? Is it only when both players are facing the same direction? Could a defender have an advantage even though he has yet to turn around yet the offense is already skating forwards? I tend to agree with JL in that I think a hybrid system lends itself to controversy and diminished quality by letting the linesmen decide what is or is not icing. Even the present system (touch-icing) can lead to controversial decisions by the linesmen (or ref ... not sure who makes that call).
that's a 'judgement' call in the USHL hybrid system... that's why I like using two lines, one for each team... if the attacker reaches his line first or at the same time as the defender reaches his, he's got at least a stride on him and would win the race in a touch-icing situation anyway...

Yet one thing I find funny is that even though a decision may not appear to be correct according to the players on the ice, they tend not to argue much which would lead me to believe that they do not care quite as much. This is probably due to the fact that a goal is not guaranteed should the offender win the race and touch the puck first. Heck, it isn't even a given that the offender will hold onto the puck for more than a second after winning the race.
they don't argue because 1) they're not going to change the call 99.9% of the time -- they'll only do that if it is an 'obvious' error, i.e. an inadvertant whistle; and 2) it's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty if they argue the call... they'll let the players yap a little bit but it's a very short leash...

I think a no-touch icing policy would be the best option. It takes unnecessary responsibility out of the hands of the officials which will only better the game and it will also increase the overall length of the playing time of a game. No longer will we be losing those 2-3 seconds during which the players race for the puck. This may not seem like much but it is another method of punishing the defenders for icing the puck in the waning seconds of the game. Whereas in the present system a player can ice the puck with 5 seconds or so left on the clock and really suffer no substantial consequences. But with no-touch icing that puck will be back in their zone with 4 seconds on the clock. This will force players to handle the puck as opposed to simply throwing it away.
the argument for touch-icing is sometimes attacker wins the race and sometimes the goalie has to play the puck because he isn't sure the defender is going to win the race so several stoppages a game are eliminated...

as well, I think you're wrong about no-touch icing being to the further disadvantage of the icing team, I think it's just the opposite... sure, it puts 2 or 3 seconds back on the clock, but the icing team saves having at least one of its players skating hard trying to negate the icing, a player that will have to stay on for the face-off... if the argument is about doing this at the end of a game, I don't think further 'punishing' a team for icing the puck is a reason to go to no-touch because icing the puck is a legitimate play to burn off the clock... the accepted penalties are bringing the face-off back into the defensive zone and no line change, why does there need to be a 'further' penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest GoHabsGo_CanucksAreChoking
Keep it the same, if we keep changing the rules were going to end up with a completely different game

Change one thing, they might end up changing a million other things!

Is there going to be any changes to the rules for next season? :huh:

Anything could happen in the Bettman NHL!

But, Personally I like the Hybrid Solution, but only if the Linesmen could keep up with it and make the right judgments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest overlords
Change one thing, they might end up changing a million other things!

Is there going to be any changes to the rules for next season? :huh:

Anything could happen in the Bettman NHL!

But, Personally I like the Hybrid Solution, but only if the Linesmen could keep up with it and make the right judgments.

exactly, giving any more responsibility to the refs is a huge mistake IMO, we've all seen how ATROCIOUS the reffing has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GoHabsGo_CanucksAreChoking
exactly, giving any more responsibility to the refs is a huge mistake IMO, we've all seen how ATROCIOUS the reffing has been.

Maybe we could get one more Linesman to skate around?? ;)

3 Linesmen

2 Refs

LIKE A HOCKEY TEAM! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...