USA Hockey introduces 'icing on PK" rule for 14 year olds and younger

[Gaskal]

The most I'd do is move the requirement for non-icing to move back to the defending blueline during a PK. I find that asking a special teams unit to move pucks up-ice 4v5 without any sort of mitigating factor at all is ridiculous.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Games are far to long already.

Average time for hockey game - 2 hours 20 mins.

That's too long?

Game - 60 minutes
Intermissions - 45 minutes
TV Timeouts - 18 minutes
Total - 123 minutes

Approx. 17 minutes are spent on all other stoppages in play etc.

I think that's pretty efficient tbh.

[bluejays]

I think from a skill building perspective, this is good. But where I see a major problem is the pressure on the refs to make a call. Now I assume refs will be more reluctant to call a penalty when the PP yield goes up and many games can be determined by a PPG. What are the downstream effects of refs being reluctant to make calls?

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by fleury

I think from a skill building perspective, this is good. But where I see a major problem is the pressure on the refs to make a call. Now I assume refs will be more reluctant to call a penalty when the PP yield goes up and many games can be determined by a PPG. What are the downstream effects of refs being reluctant to make calls?

My issue with hockey penalties is the limited options in severity of penalization. 5 minute majors, beyond fighting (which let's face it, is basically just a rest after a fight) is so rarely used, therefore the vast majority of penalties result in 2 minutes shorthanded.

Therefore, because referees don't have a useful gradient of punishment to reflect the severity of a play, referees adjust their threshold to call the subjective penalties based on the perceived severity of the penalty. I think this is the fundamental problem with some penalties like slashing. The 'gentle' slashes aren't technically allowed, but are not severe enough to be punished the same way that a severe roughing penalty should be punished. As a result, the gentle slashes go uncalled.

Then there are some penalties that are black-and-white, like puck-over-glass. Although it's nice to have a deterrent to making those plays, there's no way that flipping the puck over the glass should be penalized the same as some of the roughing or slashing penalties that get called.

I'm far from a fan of football officiating, but the concept of a range of punishment (5, 10, 15 yard penalties, ball placed at the place of foul, loss of downs, etc) allows referees to slap the wrist of minor offenses and cripple a team that does something real stupid.

This isn't a solution, just a problem that bothers me. I suppose it's possible to hand out 30 second penalties for a small slash to the hands and 3 minute penalties for a slash that's a little harsher than typical, but that opens a whole other can of worms. I don't know the answer.

[jayswin]

^^^^^^^^

I would absolutely be in favour of the addition of one minute minors and would even suggest it is long overdue. You're exactly right that refs feel they have to adjust what to call and what not to call as almost everything in hockey is worth the exact same penalty. Problem is they'll decide a blatant trip is not worth a call at one point in a game, and later in a more heated moment they'll take one guy from a minor scrum at the net.

Give them the power to call one minute for more minor stuff (and the over the glass rule should be thrown in the one minute group).

A little glove to the face after the ref told players to stop scrumming? Go to the box for a minute, rather than punishing a team just as badly as a player being tripped on a huge 3 on 2 rush, ending a scoring chance.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Would you add that stipulation/rule to regular play, 5 on 5, as well? I say, let them dump it down whenever they feel like it and try to win the face off.

Hmm, hadn't really thought of that - it sounds good in theory to add that to 5 on 5 play as it would force teams to rely more on skilled plays. But reality tends to be the mother of all...******s when it comes to changing aspects of the game like this. Would love to see an exhibition game feature both penalizing icing the puck more than twice for both 5 on 5 and 5 on 4.

[SebC]

If the NHL were to adopt something like this, I think the players would adapt pretty fast, as many of them seem to have a pretty good "draw weight" already.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

just get rid of 2 minute penalties and award penalty shots for minor infractions, and 5-min PPs for major infractions.

Oh my God those poor goalies...

[Vulcan]

For 14 years old players because of their size and skill level, it may be good but not for adults. If they insist on doing this the defensive team should be allowed to make changes after a stoppage in play.

[Finger Cookin]

Tweaks to the rules at the pro level don't matter when the pro rules aren't called anyway.

[indes]

At the pro level the team would still just continuously ice the puck. These guys make plays when they're there unless they're tired, which one killing a penalty tends to be. Better to kill 10s of pp icing it then risking a turnover and a 5 on 3.

[Darth Tkachuk]

As a minor hockey coach, I appreciate the thinking behind this. They want to encourage kids to move the puck around, and (as is the goal for kids) develop skill. In practicality, it wont work. It will encourage the PK to look for the play first, but at the end of the day, I'd still tell the kids to ice the puck if they were under pressure. Either way, you're going to be playing in your own end.

[Enoch Root]

I think it's a great idea and have been calling for it for years.

The idea that a penalized team should be given an advantage is ridiculous.

I say no icing AND penalties should be a full two minutes. You want to clean up the game? Make penalties more punitive.

Also, the idea that this would slow down the game is a big stretch IMO. Someone already posted the stats, a couple more no-change whistles isn't going to change much.

[troutman]

I don't agree that the penalized team is getting some great benefit. The score rate on the PP is much higher than even strength (I guess about 4x). Icing the puck provides a great deal of tension and release that I enjoy. It is good that the clock does not stop for this.

The temptation to dive would increase with enhanced PPs.

[killer_carlson]

This reminds me of the time they removed the touch up offsides. Completely ruined the flow of the game with too many whistles.

[FBI]

Why did they originally remove tag up offsides again?

[CaptainCrunch]

You already give a team one advantage in terms of making them one player short, then you take away something that through the normal course of a game is done.

Subjective icing is just a dumb idea.

Like I said before, I would simply make sure I have a strong face off center that can penalty kill. Then I don't give a crap about icing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Also if a team has an exceptional puck playing goalie it takes away a advantage to them. Personally I don't care if a team fires the puck down the ice on a pk and puts it on Smith's stick so we can catch them on a line change.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by FBI

Why did they originally remove tag up offsides again?

Kind of the same reason....
Wanted defenceman to skillfully play the puck instead of brainlessly fire it back in

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by robaur

Average time for hockey game - 2 hours 20 mins.

That's too long?

Game - 60 minutes
Intermissions - 45 minutes
TV Timeouts - 18 minutes
Total - 123 minutes

Approx. 17 minutes are spent on all other stoppages in play etc.

I think that's pretty efficient tbh.

i agree that around 2 1/2 hours for a game is fine, but aren't intermissions 17 minutes each?