A couple of articles have surfaced regarding potential rules changes for the 2010-11 season, and most of the proposals make me wonder if the powers-that-be ever watch college hockey.
Here's a few of the absurdities tabled in a piece released by U.S. College Hockey Online last month:
--Some made-up idea of "hybrid icing" that makes the decision arbitrary at the hands of the linesmen.
--Allowing goals to be kicked in.
--Requiring penalty killers to remain on the ice for the duration of minor and double-minor penalties.
--Not allowing penalty killers to ice the puck.
--Not allowing players to leave their skates to block shots.
Before I start dissecting these items, it is important to note that there is little chance these proposals will be implemented. Still, the fact that such potential bastardizations of the game are even being tabled shows that a segment of the NCAA brass is utterly clueless about hockey.
First, a few thoughts on icing. Touch-up or no touch-up? The NHL's touch-up system is dangerous and caused several injuries this past season. In a way I like it, but it isn't worth the injury risk. The NHL also waives off icing way too often for reasons players don't even fully understand.
The NCAA has no-touch icing. It isn't a perfect system, but it's fairly straight-forward and does not encourage players to skate full-speed toward the boards to either induce the icing call or nullify it.
At the college level, why can't we just keep the no-touch and allow linesmen to waive it off if a defensive player pulls up to allow it to cross the line?
The USCHO piece says "if the attacking player reaches an imaginary line between the faceoff dots before the defending player, icing is negated. That would presumably increase scoring chances and hit on another committee mandate, reducing whistles."
It's no secret college hockey doesn't have the best officiating in the world. Why put more of a burden on the lowest-ranking two officials on the ice?
Next, we have the elimination of the "distinct kicking motion" rule. Seriously? The subject doesn't even warrant discussion. This isn't soccer.
Then we have two items designed to further punish short-handed teams. Requiring players to remain on the ice might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Part of the strategy of killing penalties is line changing. Do you attempt it and risk getting caught on a change when the puck comes to center ice?
Prohibiting a team from changing lines for two minutes - or even four - is the equivalent of forcing football teams to keep the same personnel on the field for an entire possession for being assessed a penalty.
To make matters worse, they don't want to allow PK units to ice the puck. Why not just award a goal to any team heading to the power play?
A minor penalty should not give a team a 50/50 chance of scoring, but if the proposed rules changes were implemented, that's what would happen.
Oh yeah, not allowing players to leave their skates to block shots. Good one. I have a better idea: If the NCAA is dead-set against allowing teams to play defense, let's make a rule preventing teams from using goalies?
So in the NCAA's dream world, players could kick the puck toward the net and defensemen wouldn't be allowed to slide in front of the "shot" to block it.
Even if you aren't against all of these ideas, even more asinine proposals surfaced today on the Inside College Hockey site. INCH said that the decision on these issues will be made next month.
The highlights:
--Mandatory sentencing for contact to the head penalties.
--Changing ends for overtime.
--If a team scores on a delayed penalty situation, the penalty is still assessed to the offending team.
The NCAA wants a mandatory major for contact to the head, but unfortunately it isn't that simple. There are several factors involved, including intent, size discrepancy, whether the violated player had his head down, degree of impact, etc.
I'm in no way saying that penalties for dangerous head shots are unwarranted, just that a one-size-fits-all approach is a very bad idea.
A player turning into a check at the last second is not the same thing as a player dishing out a deliberate head shot in a 7-1 game with two minutes left.
My suggestion: For better of worse, the NCAA hired the referees it has for a reason. Let them make the decisions instead of tying their hands.
There was no context for the changing ends for overtime, but it sounds like that would happen every time a game was tied after three periods.
I think it's a great idea for CCHA and NCAA Tournament games, but I don't understand it for regular-season games (but hey, our seats are at the end opponents shoot at twice, so horray for us and too bad for the student section).
Other than just being silly, the other drawback is making players have a longer way to go for a line change after playing a full 20-minute period.
And the penalty after a goal stemming from a delayed penalty is pretty silly. So a minor penalty could cost a team two goals?
I will say that I do like one idea being floated: On a delayed penalty, make violating teams clear their zone. Possession is often an arbitrary concept for officials. Usually the penalty is assessed when a player touches the puck (see: Knapp, Connor during overtime vs. Michigan in the regional final).
This seems a lot more cut-and-dry. Either the puck is out of the zone or it isn't. Anytime you can take discrepancy out of the hands of officials, it's a good thing.
That said, almost all of these changes seem to be geared toward encouraging more scoring. Specifically, the NCAA seems to want to inflate power play percentages.
In the CCHA, teams averaged 2.78 goals per game in 2009-10, and an average of 5.46 goals were scored in games played by the 12 teams in the league.
Throw out 32 "goals", which were actually shootout wins which weren't actually hockey goals per se, and that number drops to 5.39.
So 3-2 was pretty much the norm in 2009-10. Five-plus goals in a 60-minute game.
That's the same number of scoring plays as one would see in a 21-14 football game or a 5-4 baseball game with two three-run homers.
While I wouldn't mind seeing a little more scoring (the NHL average was 5.53 when shootout "goals" are removed), I have no problem with the current format, and I wonder why the NCAA has proposed such radical measures.
The combined power play percentages of the CCHA teams was 17.6 (433 for 2456). The NHL average was 18.2 (1,664 for 9,136).
If the NCAA really wants to help college hockey, it can encourage schools to take up the sport and try to ensure strong programs like Alabama-Huntsville don't fold because they have no conference.
But leave the on-ice product alone.
Recent Comments