Jump to content

Photo

NHL Approves Hybrid Icing '13-14


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 peteyvegas51

peteyvegas51

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 08:46 AM

It's a good rule.  These guys have no honor anymore.  Someone's got to stop them from trying to kill each other.  Nobody gets hung out to dry like defensemen on a touch.  It's got to be done.


  • 0

#22 2ELIAS6

2ELIAS6

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,072 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 08:47 AM

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 ..
  • 0
believe-devs.jpg1dun.jpg

*authentic Martin Brodeur autographed goalie stick with COA for sale pm me if interested*

#23 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,935 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 09:23 AM

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 ..

 

1. The visor rule is an actual safety rule (unlike this silly icing one).  Players may not want to play without helmets either, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to, especially with players getting bigger and stronger every year.  Not to mention all the accidents that do happen with pucks going into players' eyes.

 

2. I sort of get the fighting rule, I mean they don't want players getting clocked in the side of the head unprotected during fights - thing is if you successfully prevent head shots in a fight, then fighting itself ain't going to be much other than two guys trying to throw chin uppercuts and body shots which the other guy knows is coming because you can't hit a guy upstairs unless it's in the chin somehow getting under the visor.

 

3 and 4 I agree with you on...I don't get the point of the tucked jersey, it's not like there's some epidemic of players tugging on loose jerseys to throw someone to the ice.  And some of the posts above are right about icing, it really doesn't prevent most of the collisions, unless officials just get too afraid to let anything happen and prematurely whistle plays dead all over the place.  Plus you turn what's mostly a black-and-white call into another judgement decision.

 

5.  Don't see how anyone can complain about goalie equipment being reduced besides goalies.  When it's used for protection that's one thing, when it's purely used for net coverage that's another.  You don't need all the **** goalies have on them to protect important areas, or at least not as much of it.


Edited by NJDevs4978, 01 October 2013 - 09:26 AM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#24 Derek21

Derek21

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,837 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 12:23 PM

How is anyone complaining about this? This is what the teams and players want. It is a protection issue as the video above shows the dangers of it.

 

It's a non issue as far as flow. Just different at first.

 

 

I'm okay with it as long as the officials don't make controversial calls that impact games. My main concern is that this will occur during the playoffs and it will turn into a nightmare. The worst case scenario for the NHL. It feels like they're rushing it. I'm for player safety. Hopefully, there won't be any issues.


  • 0

"The greatest trick Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

 

Hasan, Brian and I blog at New York Puck. Devils, Islanders, Rangers and Sabres.


#25 Mitico12

Mitico12

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 12:58 PM

Can someone tell me what the parameters are for "hybrid icing"...?


  • 0

#26 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,975 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 01:32 PM

I'd rather have had no touch than this hybrid crap. Too much of a judgement call
  • 0

#27 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 05:40 PM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#28 The 29th Pick

The 29th Pick

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 07:28 PM

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


  • 0

#29 CRASHER

CRASHER

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,452 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:15 AM

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.....


  • 0
Pay homage to the INCREDIBLE scoring goalie!!!! :-)

I saw CRASHER trip a kid on skates and then he stole the kids lunch money and slapped his mom when she came to pick him up.. All because the kid looked at his crease


CRASHER's official list of high stick victims from this forum:
gionta182, devilsfan26 .... WHO'S NEXT??

2005 Fantasy Football League Champion... Bow to my Football knowledge !!!!!!

2003-04 NJDevs.com winner of the Masterton Award for Dedication to the Devils(still proud of that one !)

4, Four (!?!?) Time (2005-2008) NJDevs.com winner of the Whoever the damn Award for the funniest poster in the land is named after...(geesh... post pressure, but I seem ok with it!)
TWO TIME (2005, 2006) Award Winner and the man who can show Jeremy Roenick what a REAL loudmouth is all about.... hell this mouth roars SO loud, they retired the DAMN AWARD!!!! But how do you be emotional about an award for being most emotional when you're sharing it?

2008 NJDevs Stanley Cup Winner for best overall poster... where's my damn ring?

June 6, 2007... the NHL dies just a little bit.....
.. April 20, 2008...it gets a little better :)

#30 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:09 AM

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.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#31 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:26 AM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#32 CRASHER

CRASHER

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,452 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:46 AM

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? :)


  • 0
Pay homage to the INCREDIBLE scoring goalie!!!! :-)

I saw CRASHER trip a kid on skates and then he stole the kids lunch money and slapped his mom when she came to pick him up.. All because the kid looked at his crease


CRASHER's official list of high stick victims from this forum:
gionta182, devilsfan26 .... WHO'S NEXT??

2005 Fantasy Football League Champion... Bow to my Football knowledge !!!!!!

2003-04 NJDevs.com winner of the Masterton Award for Dedication to the Devils(still proud of that one !)

4, Four (!?!?) Time (2005-2008) NJDevs.com winner of the Whoever the damn Award for the funniest poster in the land is named after...(geesh... post pressure, but I seem ok with it!)
TWO TIME (2005, 2006) Award Winner and the man who can show Jeremy Roenick what a REAL loudmouth is all about.... hell this mouth roars SO loud, they retired the DAMN AWARD!!!! But how do you be emotional about an award for being most emotional when you're sharing it?

2008 NJDevs Stanley Cup Winner for best overall poster... where's my damn ring?

June 6, 2007... the NHL dies just a little bit.....
.. April 20, 2008...it gets a little better :)

#33 devlman

devlman

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,893 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:52 AM

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.
  • 0

#34 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:15 PM

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.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#35 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:24 PM

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, 02 October 2013 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#36 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:38 PM

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.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#37 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:48 PM

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, 02 October 2013 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#38 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:02 PM

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.


  • 0

#39 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

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?


  • 0
Posted Image

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd

#40 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,123 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

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, 02 October 2013 - 04:14 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users