Another USA Hockey Potential Rule Change

[Jackspoppa]

Eliminate the icing for shorthanded teams.

[B-Ville Hockey Guy]

Eliminate the icing for shorthanded teams.

I think it is a great rule. especially now that the penalties are 1:30

[The Bone]

Seems like a good change! The NHL should really consider this change!

[AlterEagle]

I guess I'm wondering what's wrong with the current rule of icing allowed. It's been that way forever - figuratively speaking.

[sorno82]

It used to be the rule but changed it due to the dominance of the Canadians in the 50s. You used to have to serve the whole 2 minutes but was changed for the same reason.

[AlterEagle]

Ok so back in the 50's, you couldn't ice the puck during penalties. But why change it back now after 60 years?

Seems fine the way it is. Leave well enough alone.

[57special]

the reasons to do it are:

1) create offense

2) make penalties more punitive.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would like to see it in the pro game even more. It would discourage penalties, which would speed up the game. Would also like to see bigger ice surfaces, but that seems impossible for some reason.

[AlterEagle]

the reasons to do it are:

1) create offense

2) make penalties more punitive.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would like to see it in the pro game even more. It would discourage penalties, which would speed up the game. Would also like to see bigger ice surfaces, but that seems impossible for some reason.

I remotely agree with #2. But as for #1, that doesn't seem like a good solution. And what is the motivation for creating more offense? Is the game not exciting enough already?

[defense]

the reasons to do it are:

1) create offense

2) make penalties more punitive.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would like to see it in the pro game even more. It would discourage penalties, which would speed up the game. Would also like to see bigger ice surfaces, but that seems impossible for some reason.

I remotely agree with #2. But as for #1, that doesn't seem like a good solution. And what is the motivation for creating more offense? Is the game not exciting enough already?

I think they might be trying to force the players to be more creative, not that I think that it is even close to the right idea..

[outside_observer]

Letting a team ice the puck because they got a penalty has always bothered me. They broke a rule, so now they are allowed to break another rule as often as they wish. It doesn't make much sense.

[Survey]

The game is being destroyed......first eliminating checking at pee wee level...now taking away icing...next they will say no slapshots until high school

[Blue&Gold]

This rule change came up in the college ranks this summer and was shot down. The reason the coaches hated the change is that in college you can't change lines if icing is called, and they used the reasoning that this would increase the potential for injury. However they did pass the rule that if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still served so there's a chance of scoring twice. Is that true in youth? I've been away for a bit.

[57special]

Remember, this is merely a return to the rules that hockey had in place before 1960 or thereabouts. The two line offside was also abolished and the result has been more creative play.

This is basically an anti-goon rule. Not needed as much as in previous decades(i.e. 70's) but i don't see a downside.

[defense]

This rule change came up in the college ranks this summer and was shot down. The reason the coaches hated the change is that in college you can't change lines if icing is called, and they used the reasoning that this would increase the potential for injury. However they did pass the rule that if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still served so there's a chance of scoring twice. Is that true in youth? I've been away for a bit.

I thought it was always that way. A penalty is a penalty, if the team with the infraction can't touch the puck untill it is in their net.. that's the way it is. Or at least that's waht I thought

[watchdog]

i think alot of stupid calls already decide too many games and this rule would only magnafie that.

[JoltDelivered]

The way I see it, the penalized team still can ice the puck. There will just be a whistle now and if this rule change were put in place, I think most short-handed teams would continue to ice the puck and just take the whistle.

A penalty kill unit's number one job is to relieve pressure and job #2 is to take-away the middle of the ice. Icing will do both regardless if there is a whislte or not.

Look, in the youth ranks it's not always a given that the power play team will get it "set-up" in the offensive zone during a power play. Outside of the really skilled top teams, most youth teams have fairly ineffective power play units, if they even have one at all.

My point is, with 1:30 minute penalties now (pee wee and down) and this rule change, the short-handed team could still effectively disrput a power play by icing the puck and getting a whistle with out doing really any damage to their own cause.

Power plays need rhythm and flow and most importantly - TIME to develop. I would continue to coach my team to ice the puck, or at least chip it out towards center ice, if happens to go all the way down, so be it.

[starmvp]

No icing for shorthanded teams would be a great change. It would allow for more flow and scoring on the power play.