Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bartholomew Hunt

NHL Approves Hybrid Icing '13-14

51 posts in this topic

I don't see any benefit from this. Like leeski said, dangerous plays like the Pitkanen video above would play out the exact same way since the players would be close enough that the refs would opt to allow the footrace rather than blow it dead.

 

Am I missing something?

 

The problem with icing is that you have two players racing to touch a puck first.  With hybrid icing, from the dots in, assuming icing is waved off, it's no different from a normal dump in from the red line.  We don't see players getting blown up on those that often, both forwards and D know how to play those well.  In this scenario both players slow up when icing is waved off, and one guy probably doesn't try to blow up the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the players on the Devils really cared for this rule, and were surprised by the decision. Including Lou and Debo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pro and a con to this aside of the safety stuff to me.....

 

PRO: when you're icing the puck late in the game protecting a lead, this will get the whistle blown quicker and saves precious seconds for a comeback attempt

 

CON: this is the same group of referees the NHL determined are incapable of making a judgement call on pucks shot out of play for Delay of Game penalties, but you'll let them decide THIS?? That doesn't make alotta sense to me.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pro and a con to this aside of the safety stuff to me.....

 

PRO: when you're icing the puck late in the game protecting a lead, this will get the whistle blown quicker and saves precious seconds for a comeback attempt

 

CON: this is the same group of referees the NHL determined are incapable of making a judgement call on pucks shot out of play for Delay of Game penalties, but you'll let them decide THIS?? That doesn't make alotta sense to me.....

I never felt as though the NHL was really that concerned about refs making judgment calls on pucks shot out of play, I think they were just looking for ways to create more goals coming out of the previous lockout and making more powerplays would help their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never felt as though the NHL was really that concerned about refs making judgment calls on pucks shot out of play, I think they were just looking for ways to create more goals coming out of the previous lockout and making more powerplays would help their cause.

 

I mean, this is patently ridiculous - there are all sorts of other rules the NHL could create to increase scoring and excitement.  As I recall, although I googled and found nothing, delay of game by a non-goalie player in the defensive zone was a penalty.  I had just never seen it called, but it was certainly something that was done, and I imagine had the same scrutiny been applied to the game now as did then, people would've noticed defenders doing it more often than they think.  

 

To me it has the benefit of forcing the defense to find somewhere else to go with the puck than off the glass - the reason why we castigate players like Salvador and Colin White for taking the penalty often is because players like that use the glass a ton to cover for their passing and skating shortcomings and sometimes you miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never felt as though the NHL was really that concerned about refs making judgment calls on pucks shot out of play, I think they were just looking for ways to create more goals coming out of the previous lockout and making more powerplays would help their cause.

 

I remember it being specifically said somewhere that the reason the rule was black and white like it is was that they didn't want the refs to have to make a determination on intent and why the puck was shot out of play....I guess the officials got smarter a few years later....so let's fix the awful Delay of Game call too....right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know why honestly nothing can be left alone, by the time all of the "rules" are done being made and changed its not even going to be the same game... already now players HAVE to wear visors(if having played less the 25 games before rule being made).. stupid if they don't want to wear it it should be their choice.. players cant take their helmets off to fight fvcking stupid ruled if they're fighting and fall and hit their head then thats a risk that should obviously be known. I mean you can get knocked out with out falling and hitting your head if your throwing blows with someone. Then the stupid jersey rule.. honestly what the hell does that effect? Possibly making players feel less restrained in their uniform and giving them more mobility? big deal, players should be able to put on the best show and performance that they can fans pay a lot of money to see them do so.. which is why i would guess they shrunk the goalies pads and the width of the net so that theres more room for wrap arounds and such behind it. .... a bunch of stupid fvcking rules constantly changing the game ..

It's a babysitter insecure league run by idiots. Metropolitan division, realignment, mandatory visors, wanting to ban fighting, trapezoids, inconsistent suspensions, six outdoor games, and now this pointless yet confusing icing rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, this is patently ridiculous - there are all sorts of other rules the NHL could create to increase scoring and excitement.  As I recall, although I googled and found nothing, delay of game by a non-goalie player in the defensive zone was a penalty.  I had just never seen it called, but it was certainly something that was done, and I imagine had the same scrutiny been applied to the game now as did then, people would've noticed defenders doing it more often than they think.  

 

To me it has the benefit of forcing the defense to find somewhere else to go with the puck than off the glass - the reason why we castigate players like Salvador and Colin White for taking the penalty often is because players like that use the glass a ton to cover for their passing and skating shortcomings and sometimes you miss.

How is it ridiculous?  Because you disagree?  You don't remember throughout the lockout they kept on talking about different changes they could make to create more scoring?  Some of the proposed ideas were expanding the nets, making the posts bowed out to create more area to shoot at, and making the posts gray and the net red so the open net is easier for shooters to see.  Fortunately most of the ideas they were throwing out there were too outlandish to actually make it into the rulebook, but the puck over the glass automatic penalty was at least able to be justified by saying it prevents teams from getting out of trouble in their own zone by just taking a whistle and changing their lines.

 

The old rule on shooting the puck out of play was just that if a skater intentionally stops the play it's a delay of game--whether it be shooting the puck out of play intentionally, knocking the nets off the moorings on purpose, or laying on top of the puck.  The only change I would make to that rule is that if a player in the defensive zone shoots the puck out of play but it's not blatantly intentional enough to call a penalty, they should just make it like icing where it's a faceoff in his zone and the team can't change players.  A penalty for an accidental play like that is too harsh, especially when they are already trying to kill another penalty, and the justification for making it a penalty is the exact same justification for icing being an infraction, so why should one have a harsher punishment than the other?

 

I remember it being specifically said somewhere that the reason the rule was black and white like it is was that they didn't want the refs to have to make a determination on intent and why the puck was shot out of play....I guess the officials got smarter a few years later....so let's fix the awful Delay of Game call too....right? :)

Well yeah they weren't going to just come out and say we want to make more scoring by creating more powerplays just like they had to come up with a reason why goaltenders should get a penalty for playing the puck in the corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it ridiculous?  Because you disagree?  You don't remember throughout the lockout they kept on talking about different changes they could make to create more scoring?  Some of the proposed ideas were expanding the nets, making the posts bowed out to create more area to shoot at, and making the posts gray and the net red so the open net is easier for shooters to see.  Fortunately most of the ideas they were throwing out there were too outlandish to actually make it into the rulebook, but the puck over the glass automatic penalty was at least able to be justified by saying it prevents teams from getting out of trouble in their own zone by just taking a whistle and changing their lines.

 

Again, they could do all these things if they wanted.  They could go back to calling the rulebook the way they did during the 05-06 season.  They could make minor penalties with under 2 minutes left penalty shots.  They could go to 3 on 3 OT after 4 on 4.  The idea that they invented a penalty that isn't an infraction just to create more scoring is ridiculous - clearly someone thought this was a problem.

 

 

The old rule on shooting the puck out of play was just that if a skater intentionally stops the play it's a delay of game--whether it be shooting the puck out of play intentionally, knocking the nets off the moorings on purpose, or laying on top of the puck.  The only change I would make to that rule is that if a player in the defensive zone shoots the puck out of play but it's not blatantly intentional enough to call a penalty, they should just make it like icing where it's a faceoff in his zone and the team can't change players.  A penalty for an accidental play like that is too harsh, especially when they are already trying to kill another penalty, and the justification for making it a penalty is the exact same justification for icing being an infraction, so why should one have a harsher punishment than the other?

 

This would be terrible.  It would lead to more whistles - players would no longer ice the puck intentionally, they'd just flip it into the stands.  Not hard to do and dangerous for spectators as well.  How often was this penalty called?  I believe I never saw it called, do you honestly think it was never done?  How often do players get away with knocking the net off the moorings intentionally?  A lot, and it's something that refs are watching for.  Putting the puck into the seats wasn't something they were really looking for.

 

Ideally it would be a 1 minute penalty, but I think a lot of the NHL penalties should be changed - e.g. boarding or elbowing should never be minor penalties, they should be 3 minutes at least.

 

 

 

Well yeah they weren't going to just come out and say we want to make more scoring by creating more powerplays just like they had to come up with a reason why goaltenders should get a penalty for playing the puck in the corners.

 

That's silly.  That penalty is seldom called - there they wanted to increase the flow of the game, not increase the number of penalties called.  How many of those are there a year, 30?  At most?  Of course, they screwed up, as goalies seldom played the puck in the trapezoid area anyway, and even when they did, it was very dangerous to be out that far and a goal could easily be scored, but that's what they came up with.  If anything, goalies shouldn't be permitted to play the puck in the trapezoid and it should be a little wider.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, they could do all these things if they wanted.  They could go back to calling the rulebook the way they did during the 05-06 season.  They could make minor penalties with under 2 minutes left penalty shots.  They could go to 3 on 3 OT after 4 on 4.  The idea that they invented a penalty that isn't an infraction just to create more scoring is ridiculous - clearly someone thought this was a problem.

 

 

 

This would be terrible.  It would lead to more whistles - players would no longer ice the puck intentionally, they'd just flip it into the stands.  Not hard to do and dangerous for spectators as well.  How often was this penalty called?  I believe I never saw it called, do you honestly think it was never done?  How often do players get away with knocking the net off the moorings intentionally?  A lot, and it's something that refs are watching for.  Putting the puck into the seats wasn't something they were really looking for.

 

Ideally it would be a 1 minute penalty, but I think a lot of the NHL penalties should be changed - e.g. boarding or elbowing should never be minor penalties, they should be 3 minutes at least.

 

 

 

 

That's silly.  That penalty is seldom called - there they wanted to increase the flow of the game, not increase the number of penalties called.  How many of those are there a year, 30?  At most?  Of course, they screwed up, as goalies seldom played the puck in the trapezoid area anyway, and even when they did, it was very dangerous to be out that far and a goal could easily be scored, but that's what they came up with.  If anything, goalies shouldn't be permitted to play the puck in the trapezoid and it should be a little wider.

I still don't get your reasoning for it being ridiculous.  I fully understand that they have the ability to make new rules to create scoring, and I don't see why making more powerplays in order to accomplish that goal is ridiculous.  There was no pandemic of guys shooting the puck over the glass, goaltenders playing the puck in the corners was a little weird because they couldn't be hit but it wasn't that big of a deal, and more recently--players using their hands to win faceoffs wasn't a big deal that needed to be addressed but now that is a penalty too for some reason.

 

Do you remember anybody before this delay of game for shooting the puck out penalty was created saying that they really need to do something about it?  I certainly don't.  I do remember seeing it called a few times, but yeah there were times when it wouldn't be called when it probably could have, and that's why I think they should be prevented from making line changes.  This rule has only existed for the last eight years and prior to then, nobody thought the old way was terrible like you're saying it would be if we went back to that.

 

Yeah that last part with the trapezoid rule was a bad example on my part lol, the penalty for using your hands on a faceoff is a better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get your reasoning for it being ridiculous.  I fully understand that they have the ability to make new rules to create scoring, and I don't see why making more powerplays in order to accomplish that goal is ridiculous.  There was no pandemic of guys shooting the puck over the glass, goaltenders playing the puck in the corners was a little weird because they couldn't be hit but it wasn't that big of a deal, and more recently--players using their hands to win faceoffs wasn't a big deal that needed to be addressed but now that is a penalty too for some reason.

 

You think they just make up rules instead of enforcing the ones they already have.  I just don't think that's how the NHL GMs and Board of Governors think.  They did that, I think, because they thought it was giving players an unfair advantage and goes against the idea of a faceoff being with a stick instead of with a player's hand.  It can also leave hands vulnerable to slashes.  GMs wanted reviews of 4 minute double minor high sticks and jerseys to be tucked in - who knows what they are thinking sometimes?  Scotty Bowman wants something called a ringette line put above the faceoff dots after which two line passes are legal so that players can't pass the puck from their goal line to the opponent's blueline.  Why?  How is this a problem?  How often does this happen in a game, or how often is this attempted?  Almost never, but a guy who won a billion Stanley Cups gets real annoyed when someone manages to complete a pass like this.  I think GMs have pet peeves about this stuff, they bring it up to one another, if there's a consensus and they can convince people, it goes into the game.  Again, once players learn not to use their hands on faceoffs, the penalty will simply vanish in the same way that the trapezoid almost never matters.  It'll be 20 power plays in a league where there's 9000+ called a year.   I bet there weren't more than 50 of those called last year.

 

 

 

 

Do you remember anybody before this delay of game for shooting the puck out penalty was created saying that they really need to do something about it?  I certainly don't.  I do remember seeing it called a few times, but yeah there were times when it wouldn't be called when it probably could have, and that's why I think they should be prevented from making line changes.  This rule has only existed for the last eight years and prior to then, nobody thought the old way was terrible like you're saying it would be if we went back to that.

 

No, but the Internet was much smaller in 2004.  I couldn't immediately have access to people watching every game, as I can with Twitter, and now people track things.  I think, as I said above, that if we went back and watched games from that era we'd see more intentional clears than you think.  I imagine it was such an ingrained part of the game that we never questioned it.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just from my recollections of Devils teams, I do remember the Devils and their opponents during the 2000 Cup run and the 2001 Finals run purposefully flinging the puck out of play when they were in trouble.  Only happened a few times during each run, but it did indeed happen and it was just a whistle back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with icing is that you have two players racing to touch a puck first.  With hybrid icing, from the dots in, assuming icing is waved off, it's no different from a normal dump in from the red line.  We don't see players getting blown up on those that often, both forwards and D know how to play those well.  In this scenario both players slow up when icing is waved off, and one guy probably doesn't try to blow up the other.

 

OK, so no matter what, the footrace will never again play out the way it used to? It will either be blown dead or waived entirely based on the linesman's judgement call of who would reach the puck first based on where the players are when they cross the dots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so no matter what, the footrace will never again play out the way it used to? It will either be blown dead or waived entirely based on the linesman's judgement call of who would reach the puck first based on where the players are when they cross the dots?

Here's some example scenarios:

1. Two players in a race are too close to see who's ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Icing not waived off and race for puck continues like we've seen in past years.(This is what kinda makes the rule a little odd to me, as this is the scenario in which people could be injured.)

2. Defending player is ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Play blown dead, icing called.

3. Attacking player is ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Icing waived, play continues? Might just be that they don't waive it and let the attacking player just touch it to negate it, but either way, result is the same.

Pretty sure that's how it works. Someone correct me if I missed something.

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think they just make up rules instead of enforcing the ones they already have.  I just don't think that's how the NHL GMs and Board of Governors think.  They did that, I think, because they thought it was giving players an unfair advantage and goes against the idea of a faceoff being with a stick instead of with a player's hand.  It can also leave hands vulnerable to slashes.  GMs wanted reviews of 4 minute double minor high sticks and jerseys to be tucked in - who knows what they are thinking sometimes?  Scotty Bowman wants something called a ringette line put above the faceoff dots after which two line passes are legal so that players can't pass the puck from their goal line to the opponent's blueline.  Why?  How is this a problem?  How often does this happen in a game, or how often is this attempted?  Almost never, but a guy who won a billion Stanley Cups gets real annoyed when someone manages to complete a pass like this.  I think GMs have pet peeves about this stuff, they bring it up to one another, if there's a consensus and they can convince people, it goes into the game.  Again, once players learn not to use their hands on faceoffs, the penalty will simply vanish in the same way that the trapezoid almost never matters.  It'll be 20 power plays in a league where there's 9000+ called a year.   I bet there weren't more than 50 of those called last year.

 

 

 

 

 

No, but the Internet was much smaller in 2004.  I couldn't immediately have access to people watching every game, as I can with Twitter, and now people track things.  I think, as I said above, that if we went back and watched games from that era we'd see more intentional clears than you think.  I imagine it was such an ingrained part of the game that we never questioned it.

I can't imagine that many GMs thought using a hand on a faceoff was such a big deal that they needed to make it a minor penalty.  I have never in my life heard anyone complain about that at any level of hockey.  Even if they did want to eliminate it, why does it need to be a penalty?  Why not just make it like every other faceoff violation--just redo the draw but with the center getting kicked out and if he does it enough times, then give him a penalty?

 

Here's some example scenarios:

1. Two players in a race are too close to see who's ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Icing not waived off and race for puck continues like we've seen in past years.(This is what kinda makes the rule a little odd to me, as this is the scenario in which people could be injured.)

2. Defending player is ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Play blown dead, icing called.

3. Attacking player is ahead at the dots.

Outcome: Icing waived, play continues? Might just be that they don't waive it and let the attacking player just touch it to negate it, but either way, result is the same.

Pretty sure that's how it works. Someone correct me if I missed something.

This is what I was wondering about as well, but I saw an instance in one of last night's games where the linesman waved it off when the players were around the hash marks.  Assuming he called it correctly, it seems like there is no longer a race for the puck, so it actually does seem to eliminate the dangerous plays with guys jostling for position while skating full speed towards a wall since, as Triumph pointed out, they will slow down to play the puck like a normal dump-in.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine that many GMs thought using a hand on a faceoff was such a big deal that they needed to make it a minor penalty.  I have never in my life heard anyone complain about that at any level of hockey.  Even if they did want to eliminate it, why does it need to be a penalty?  Why not just make it like every other faceoff violation--just redo the draw but with the center getting kicked out and if he does it enough times, then give him a penalty?

 

This encourages it.  It doesn't prevent it.  If you want it out of the game, make it a penalty.  It'll be gone in 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This encourages it.  It doesn't prevent it.  If you want it out of the game, make it a penalty.  It'll be gone in 2 years.

How does it encourage it if you can't win a faceoff that way anymore and instead the faceoff is redone with a winger taking the draw?  Just because something isn't penalized doesn't mean it is encouraged.  Might as well just make icing a penalty then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it encourage it if you can't win a faceoff that way anymore and instead the faceoff is redone with a winger taking the draw?  Just because something isn't penalized doesn't mean it is encouraged.  Might as well just make icing a penalty then.

 

It makes it a virtual freeroll if the center falls down and the puck is lying there.  Oh, a winger has to take the faceoff instead of us losing it?  Well, we were going to lose it anyway.  Plus nothing people love more than watching faceoff resets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes it a virtual freeroll if the center falls down and the puck is lying there.  Oh, a winger has to take the faceoff instead of us losing it?  Well, we were going to lose it anyway.  Plus nothing people love more than watching faceoff resets.

Well in that case I still wouldn't say it is "encouraged," and like other faceoff violations if you do it enough times you get a penalty, which prevents centers from exploiting it.  Having the winger take the faceoff is still not as good as the way things were when you could just win the faceoff with your hands.  You can use your hands to play the puck at any time so why should faceoffs be different than any other puck battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chico was dead wrong tonight.  That one play there is one they absolutely should have blown dead.  All ties and close races should and always go to the defending player.  Since the attacking team is the one guilty of the infraction of icing, the onus is on them to get into position to clearly get possession of the puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chico was dead wrong tonight. That one play there is one they absolutely should have blown dead. All ties and close races should and always go to the defending player. Since the attacking team is the one guilty of the infraction of icing, the onus is on them to get into position to clearly get possession of the puck.

Absolutely not. Glass was clearly overtaking the defender, and he did actually beat him to the puck. If its going to be 50-50 whos going to get it then you let it go. That play wasnt even 50-50, glass was going to get the puck first. 1 game, 1 terrible call already with this rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure hope this hybrid icing sh!t doesnt stick around forever.. talk about annoying already and its only been one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. Glass was clearly overtaking the defender, and he did actually beat him to the puck. If its going to be 50-50 whos going to get it then you let it go. That play wasnt even 50-50, glass was going to get the puck first. 1 game, 1 terrible call already with this rule

 

No.  Any neck and neck race will always go to the defending player.  No ifs ands or buts.  That was the case for that one particular play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the attacking player has to be clearly ahead of the defending player in the race.  If it's a tie, then the defending player gets the call.  The attacking player can still be ahead of the defending player, and the play will will still get blown down.  Only when it's 100% definitive the attacking player will get to the puck first will be when icing is waved off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure hope this hybrid icing sh!t doesnt stick around forever.. talk about annoying already and its only been one game.

 

It's about safety and both sides wanted it. A few questionable icing races that have about .0001% impact on the game aren't going to change anything. It's better to have Tanner Glass mad about that then to end up like Chris McAlpine or Taylor Fedun (I think that was the Oilers guy it happened to)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0