Jump to content

Photo

NHL Approves Hybrid Icing '13-14


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#41 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:35 PM

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, 03 October 2013 - 12:50 AM.

  • 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

#42 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,576 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:33 PM

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.


  • 0

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


#43 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:48 AM

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.


  • 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

#44 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,576 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:34 AM

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.


  • 0

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


#45 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:30 PM

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?


  • 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

#46 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:03 PM

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.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#47 Bartholomew Hunt

Bartholomew Hunt

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:55 PM

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
  • 0

#48 2ELIAS6

2ELIAS6

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,261 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:03 PM

sure hope this hybrid icing sh!t doesnt stick around forever.. talk about annoying already and its only been one game.
  • 0
believe-devs.jpg1dun.jpg

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

#49 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:12 PM

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.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#50 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:28 PM

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.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#51 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:45 PM

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)


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14

#52 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:26 AM

I know injuries from icings are rare, but the injuries that do come from icing are devastating injuries.  I can see why they wanted to get rid of it.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users