Wayne-1 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=241045 NHL APPROVES RULE CHANGES ON FACEOFFS, ICING The National Hockey League's Board of Governors endorsed three key rule changes in its annual meeting on Wednesday that will be implemented at the start of the 2008-09 season. 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. Also, the league announced Wednesday that the board endorsed immediate and long-term recommendations provided by the Goaltender Equipment Working Group and the league's competition committee and will work with goalies and equipment manufacturers on standards for the maximum size of all equipment that a player can wear. -30- I would have figured Rule 76.2 to have the biggest impact but someone said the AHL used it last season and it wasn't a big difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innis_Mor Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The icing change is at least an initial attempt to rid the game of an (unnecessarily) dangerous play for defensemen. IMO, they should just go to no touch icing. Most of the time the "icing play" is barely any more exciting than watching an NFL punt play (a "kick-and catch" -- whoop-de-doo!). The face-off changes I am not sure I agree with, but they are so unimportant as changes, I really don't care. Two I was looking for (the first of which I understood they were to look at): 2 minute penalty for tripping if you cause the player you are chasing to go to the ice after you dive and knock the puck away. I have never understood why refs don't call a penalty; sure, it isn't a penalty shot anymore as the defender got the puck first, but you still can't trip the guy after! How's the other player supposed to get the puck now laying in the corner when he is on his behind sliding into the boards because he was tripped? Clear up the "ref is to blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck" -- I know originally the thought was to protect the goalie from sticks and skates in a scrum when he has the puck covered, but it is getting rather silly watching the game on TV and the camera has the opposite angle to the ref, 10 guys are fighting for a clearly lose puck, and one of them is popping into the net just as the ref is blowing the whistle 'cause he "can't find the puck" (suggestion to ref: move your feet! and take your cue from the fact that 10 players are scrambling around, and the goalie's got his head swiveling back and forth lucking for the puck!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenderjetta Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The icing change is at least an initial attempt to rid the game of an (unnecessarily) dangerous play for defensemen. IMO, they should just go to no touch icing. Most of the time the "icing play" is barely any more exciting than watching an NFL punt play (a "kick-and catch" -- whoop-de-doo!). I wish they'd go to no-touch icing as well. The CHL uses no-touch icing and it works fine. The league claims they don't want to take away scoring chances or excitment but really I'd say there might be 12 good scoring chances all year off an icing that someone kept alive. Compare that to 20 boring 'punts' each game where we have to wait for the defencmen to get back. It's a good thing we have icing to keep the game exciting. Interesting that the goalie gear was a footnote - that could be the most important change of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne-1 Posted June 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The icing change is at least an initial attempt to rid the game of an (unnecessarily) dangerous play for defensemen. IMO, they should just go to no touch icing. Most of the time the "icing play" is barely any more exciting than watching an NFL punt play (a "kick-and catch" -- whoop-de-doo!).that's really more of a 'clarification' than a 'change' since it would be interference to 'play the player' instead of the puck... and nobody gets hurt on those insignificant icing plays that are 'unnecessary', it's the times when it has an actual effect on the play that guys get hurt... and that's why some are against no-touch, it's a trade-off of a few instances of player safety for a play that effects scoring chances and game flow at least a few times each game... The face-off changes I am not sure I agree with, but they are so unimportant as changes, I really don't care.hardly unimportant -- the difference between an offensive zone face-off and a neutral zone face-off, especially on a power-play can be huge... if you have a good-face-off man, that guarantees you start almost every PP with possession in the offensive zone already... Two I was looking for (the first of which I understood they were to look at): 2 minute penalty for tripping if you cause the player you are chasing to go to the ice after you dive and knock the puck away. I have never understood why refs don't call a penalty; sure, it isn't a penalty shot anymore as the defender got the puck first, but you still can't trip the guy after! How's the other player supposed to get the puck now laying in the corner when he is on his behind sliding into the boards because he was tripped? Clear up the "ref is to blow the whistle when he loses sight of the puck" -- I know originally the thought was to protect the goalie from sticks and skates in a scrum when he has the puck covered, but it is getting rather silly watching the game on TV and the camera has the opposite angle to the ref, 10 guys are fighting for a clearly lose puck, and one of them is popping into the net just as the ref is blowing the whistle 'cause he "can't find the puck" (suggestion to ref: move your feet! and take your cue from the fact that 10 players are scrambling around, and the goalie's got his head swiveling back and forth lucking for the puck!) they don't currently penalize for things that occur on the continuation of legitimate plays, e.g. cutting a player on the follow-through of a shot, so don't look for any changes there... as for the refs 'moving their feet', they already do as much as they can while still being in 'position' to make the call...you can't allow the refs to decide for themselves where the 'proper' position is because it would just result in many more instances of them being in the 'wrong' place to make the call... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babinator77 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 i don't love these changes as i think it puts more control of the game in the hands of the refs with these 'if-than' scenarios. how many more penalties can there be? i wish they'd done it either/or - automatic icing or not - but if this is meant to enable a scoring chance while preventing possible injuries, i guess it makes sense. 76.2 sounds like a pretty big deal to me. even if it didn't affect the ahl much i'll be shocked if it doesn't have an impact at the nhl level tbh. if the habs can get a good face-off man this off season they'll be even deadlier on the pp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QbGamer Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Neat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leafsrebuild Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yay.. more rule changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innis_Mor Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 ... they don't currently penalize for things that occur on the continuation of legitimate plays, e.g. cutting a player on the follow-through of a shot, so don't look for any changes there...It was on a GM list of possibles as a 'clarification' because a number of managers agree it does not make much sense. Your example is not in the same vein. It is a natural hockey play to follow through some on a hockey shot, and opposing players should know and understand that, and that they won't be rewarded (with a PP) for sticking their face down low into the stick's natural path -- it's not going to be called "high-sticking" as it is not. And a "cutting a player" call is a high-sticking infraction. A player on a breakaway should have a reasonable expectation that the free ice in front of him is his unless an opposing player catches him and gets his body into or in front of him. A defender diving to knock the puck away from the breakaway man does not earn the right to trip him in the process -- diving along the ice is not a natural hockey play (the game is played on skates). If it achieves the goal of knocking the puck away directly, then I agree there cannot be a penalty shot, as the breakaway was taken away. But if the player is upended in the aftermath, it should still be 2-minutes for tripping -- players can't go around diving on the ice in front of each other and tripping players without recourse. Soccer figured that one out a long time ago -- you slide in and get BOTH the ball AND the player, it's a foul -- you do it standing up (soccer is played on your feet), and it is generally not a foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne-1 Posted June 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 It was on a GM list of possibles as a 'clarification' because a number of managers agree it does not make much sense. Your example is not in the same vein. It is a natural hockey play to follow through some on a hockey shot, and opposing players should know and understand that, and that they won't be rewarded (with a PP) for sticking their face down low into the stick's natural path -- it's not going to be called "high-sticking" as it is not. And a "cutting a player" call is a high-sticking infraction. A player on a breakaway should have a reasonable expectation that the free ice in front of him is his unless an opposing player catches him and gets his body into or in front of him. A defender diving to knock the puck away from the breakaway man does not earn the right to trip him in the process -- diving along the ice is not a natural hockey play (the game is played on skates). If it achieves the goal of knocking the puck away directly, then I agree there cannot be a penalty shot, as the breakaway was taken away. But if the player is upended in the aftermath, it should still be 2-minutes for tripping -- players can't go around diving on the ice in front of each other and tripping players without recourse. Soccer figured that one out a long time ago -- you slide in and get BOTH the ball AND the player, it's a foul -- you do it standing up (soccer is played on your feet), and it is generally not a foul. a 'clarification' is the GMs' method of getting minor Rule 'changes' through without having to go to the Competition Committee first... it's a matter of opinion of what is a 'natural' play in hockey... of course, the wind-up and follow through of a shot are natural plays, but leaving your feet either to block a shot or to knock a puck away have always been part of the game... I guess it's a matter of perspective, if you're the player getting upended you think it should be a trip, if you're the defending player, you don't think you should be penalized for the follow through of a legitimate play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innis_Mor Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 a 'clarification' is the GMs' method of getting minor Rule 'changes' through without having to go to the Competition Committee first... it's a matter of opinion of what is a 'natural' play in hockey... of course, the wind-up and follow through of a shot are natural plays, but leaving your feet either to block a shot or to knock a puck away have always been part of the game... I guess it's a matter of perspective, if you're the player getting upended you think it should be a trip, if you're the defending player, you don't think you should be penalized for the follow through of a legitimate play... I still contend that diving and sliding headlong along the ice, while reaching or swinging your stick to knock away a puck was never intended to be a natural ice hockey play. Avery tried to introduce a new, natural hockey play himself last play-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafHater Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 just need clarification on rule 76.2. I know the hockey season wasn't that far away but were do they have the first faceoff of a power play now? For some reason i think of it in the same way but i guess it wasn't since its changed lol. i guess i never payed that much attention to it to notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonave Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 i like the rule changes except that about the icing. i think the nhl is taking too much emphasis from physicality and adding it to speed. isnt the game fast enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyDryden Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I like the face off rules, but I also prefer no touch icing. It would also save more time on the clock to actually play instead of chasing the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony1234 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't like the icing rule when it comes to contact. It needs to be clearer. I go back when Latendresse was called for it in the pre season. He did not hit the other guy, he did not try to knock him off balance, he just tried to get body position so he could touch the puck first. His shoulder did go into the guys chest, but there was no intention of a check. I understand what they are trying to avoid, and agree with the intent, but if they are not going to allow any type of contact at all, would it just not be better to have no touch icing ? If you can't block a player in the attempt to get a puck that is in play, how do you have a chance to play that puck ? I guess we will see how it all plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HabsFanInCalgary Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 It was on a GM list of possibles as a 'clarification' because a number of managers agree it does not make much sense. Your example is not in the same vein. It is a natural hockey play to follow through some on a hockey shot, and opposing players should know and understand that, and that they won't be rewarded (with a PP) for sticking their face down low into the stick's natural path -- it's not going to be called "high-sticking" as it is not. And a "cutting a player" call is a high-sticking infraction. A player on a breakaway should have a reasonable expectation that the free ice in front of him is his unless an opposing player catches him and gets his body into or in front of him. A defender diving to knock the puck away from the breakaway man does not earn the right to trip him in the process -- diving along the ice is not a natural hockey play (the game is played on skates). If it achieves the goal of knocking the puck away directly, then I agree there cannot be a penalty shot, as the breakaway was taken away. But if the player is upended in the aftermath, it should still be 2-minutes for tripping -- players can't go around diving on the ice in front of each other and tripping players without recourse. Soccer figured that one out a long time ago -- you slide in and get BOTH the ball AND the player, it's a foul -- you do it standing up (soccer is played on your feet), and it is generally not a foul. I understand your point, but should the player on the breakaway not know that someone will try to dive and poke the puck away. Alot of guys go down pretty flippin' easy as soon as they see the stick/arm/head anywhere near their legs. Would that not make it a dive? Is that not a penalty in itself? Unsportmanlike Conduct is what they call it I believe. Also, once the 'chaser' slides in front of the 'breaker' does that ice not now belong to the chaser. He occupied it first. Weather he had the puck or not, he was in that spot first! Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answer71 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 just need clarification on rule 76.2. I know the hockey season wasn't that far away but were do they have the first faceoff of a power play now? For some reason i think of it in the same way but i guess it wasn't since its changed lol. i guess i never payed that much attention to it to notice Yeah I was thinking the same.... I can only guess that if a penalty was assessed in the offensive zone... then the faceoff was brought out over the blue line whereas now it will be brought all the way back to the defensive end....I dunno! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne-1 Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 just FYI, previously, the first faceoff on a PP would be in the attacking zone (as related to the team about to start the PP) if the play stopped in the attacking zone, or in the neutral zone if the play stopped in the neutral zone or the defending zone... two exceptions would be if the team that is going to start the PP was responsible for the whistle, i.e. their goalie froze the puck, in which case the faceoff stayed in their end... also, if there was already going to be a faceoff in the defending end, and then the penalty occurred during the stoppage, the faceoff would not be moved into the neutral zone... now, 76.2 reads in part: When players are penalized at a stoppage of play so as to result in penalties being placed on the penalty time clock to one team, the ensuing face-off shall be conducted at one of the two face-off spots in the offending team’s end zone. There are only four exceptions to this application: (i) when a penalty is assessed after the scoring of a goal - face-off at center ice; (ii) when a penalty is assessed at the end (or start) of a period - face-off at center ice; (iii) when the defending team is about to be penalized and the attacking players enter the attacking zone beyond the outer edge of the end zone face-off circle - face-off in the neutral zone (see paragraph 11 of this section); (iv) when the team not being penalized ices the puck - face-off in the neutral zone outside the blue line of the team icing the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=252833\ Apparently the face off rule is having a big impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne-1 Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=252833\ Apparently the face off rule is having a big impact. well, I've been saying since the Rule change was announced how much more important faceoff ability was going to be... and it's why I've been saying Kyle Chipchura isn't going to make it as an NHL centre, at least not on a team that's contending for the Cup... watch how many PPs start with a faceoff win and the puck never comes out of the zone until it's brought out to centre ice after the goal... even if the goal comes after a stoppage and another faceoff, that second offensive zone faceoff is at least partially a result of the first offensive zone faceoff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstStar Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 I wish they'd go to no-touch icing as well. The CHL uses no-touch icing and it works fine. The league claims they don't want to take away scoring chances or excitment but really I'd say there might be 12 good scoring chances all year off an icing that someone kept alive. Compare that to 20 boring 'punts' each game where we have to wait for the defencmen to get back. It's a good thing we have icing to keep the game exciting. Interesting that the goalie gear was a footnote - that could be the most important change of all. In regular season play, I doubt the "no touch icing" would make much difference, but i do see it making a difference in the post season. Players are fired up and with minutes left in the game, they'll do what has to be done to ensure the puck doesn't come back to their end. The only plus I see from this rule, is that it should cut down on injuries, some of the players go flying into the boards at such speeds. It's just a matter of time before there's another serious injury from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafHater Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 just FYI, previously, the first faceoff on a PP would be in the attacking zone (as related to the team about to start the PP) if the play stopped in the attacking zone, or in the neutral zone if the play stopped in the neutral zone or the defending zone... two exceptions would be if the team that is going to start the PP was responsible for the whistle, i.e. their goalie froze the puck, in which case the faceoff stayed in their end... also, if there was already going to be a faceoff in the defending end, and then the penalty occurred during the stoppage, the faceoff would not be moved into the neutral zone... now, 76.2 reads in part: When players are penalized at a stoppage of play so as to result in penalties being placed on the penalty time clock to one team, the ensuing face-off shall be conducted at one of the two face-off spots in the offending team’s end zone. There are only four exceptions to this application: (i) when a penalty is assessed after the scoring of a goal - face-off at center ice; (ii) when a penalty is assessed at the end (or start) of a period - face-off at center ice; (iii) when the defending team is about to be penalized and the attacking players enter the attacking zone beyond the outer edge of the end zone face-off circle - face-off in the neutral zone (see paragraph 11 of this section); (iv) when the team not being penalized ices the puck - face-off in the neutral zone outside the blue line of the team icing the puck. ok. Thank you. i sort of get it now (though i had to reread like 10 times lol). not because of the way you wrote it just cause i have a hard time picturing things in my head. I would almost need someone to come over and like draw the different scenarios lol. which i'm not going to ask you to do. if i understand correctly, last year, depending on where the penalty was called/play stopped, the faceoff would change positions. While this year, except for when the four exceptions apply, its always in the penalised teams defending zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.