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

[GreenLantern2814]

As a development tool, I like it. You want kids to play with the puck on their sticks more. If they can't ice the puck, they have to either make a smart chip or look to create offense. Which in turn will lead to more goals.

Don't care if it never sees the pros, but I can see it being a solid developmental tool. When you get to a higher level, you can always teach someone to blindly throw the puck down the ice - it's harder to get someone to think about making a play on the PK when all they've ever known is 'down the ice'.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't follow. Icing the puck in the normal course of the game results in a faceoff. The new rule keeps that consistent during penalties. Nothing is being taken away.

What is subjective icing?

[Delthefunky]

I hate the idea that we always have to tweak the game just to appease some new hockey markets, but this actually makes a lot of sense to me. It would see an increase in goals, and excitement if a team can keep the other penned in their zone on the P.P.

I would much rather a rule change like this over some of the more drastic ideas, like changing the net size and shape etc.

[Greybeard]

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.

You forgot the video and goal reviews.... add 10 minutes?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't follow. Icing the puck in the normal course of the game results in a faceoff. The new rule keeps that consistent during penalties. Nothing is being taken away.

What is subjective icing?

OK let me rephrase. You're already giving a team a big advantage in terms of a penalty by giving them a 1 man advantage. Being able to ice the puck doesn't balance that off. Now your taking away a tool of penalty killing by throwing icing in, which means your pretty much doubling up the advantage.

We don't need to keep making these landmark changes to the game to increase scoring.

To me adding icing on pk's to the game is just going to make the games longer and kill the flow even further, and I doubt its going to increase scoring enough to balance that off, what it is going to do as well since teams can't ice the puck is force teams to adopt the fast break to the blueline for penalty killers so at the very least they can tip the puck past the center line, so that's going to probably force blueliners off of the blueline.

I would bet it would also increase the ragging of the puck by penalty killing teams so that they can line change on the fly instead of during a long dump into the opposition zone.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Even the best in the league loses 37% of his face-offs.

[Resolute 14]

Yet another pointlessly stupid rule that will fail to increase scoring in the long run.

[Huntingwhale]

Dumb rule change. One of the most satisfying moments in hockey is seeing your team being pressured while on the PK, fighting for a loose puck, and shooting it down the ice.

Leave the rule as is. Not everything in hockey needs to be about scoring more goals.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I'd rather they start with serving the full 2 minutes as a place to tweak scoring than this at the pro level. As a development tool, it might be an interesting idea, but at most of the rec levels, it doesn't make that much difference anyway. Powerplays are obviously helpful, but often times there are about the same number of scoring chances for the shorthanded team (especially if there is that one dominant player).

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I hate the idea that we always have to tweak the game just to appease some new hockey markets, but this actually makes a lot of sense to me. It would see an increase in goals, and excitement if a team can keep the other penned in their zone on the P.P.

I would much rather a rule change like this over some of the more drastic ideas, like changing the net size and shape etc.

I'm fine with increases in goals, but not fine with that increase being dictated by referee decisions. If anything, I would prefer to decrease the magnitude of importance that the average penalty carries.

[undercoverbrother]

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.

Then start calling all the slashes to the wrists, and see how quickly the players stop doing it.

Edit: Also, let the team taking the penalty shot choose who gets to shoot or we'll get "Hack-a-Shaq" 2.0.

Interesting, I think the better option is to make a 2 minute penalty a 2 minute penalty, a goal no longer cancels penalty. The player serves their two minutes regardless of how many goals are scored.

[bubbsy]

I like the rule and the concept. I just don't see how they can get around the issue of multiple whistles and stoppages as a PK'ing team continues to ice the puck to relieve pressure.

I don't like the idea of further penalizing a team for icing during a PK...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Interesting, I think the better option is to make a 2 minute penalty a 2 minute penalty, a goal no longer cancels penalty. The player serves their two minutes regardless of how many goals are scored.

They originally had this rule and they changed it because the Habs at the time were just lighting people up on the power play, it becomes a lopsided advantage.

I could see teams upping the diving if it was a two minute advantage because frankly the NHL still doesn't call enough embellishment.

I don't get why we keep having these rules to "Increase scoring". Its not about increasing scoring, that's not the problem with the game. I've seen awful games that were 7-6, I've seen thrilling, brilliant, awesome games that were -0.

The rule changes should be about improving flow. Changing the penalty killing rules like this doesn't do that.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I don't think ability to ice without a whistle is a huge advantage in terms of play.

When the play continues, the PP team has possession of the puck pretty much 100 percent if the time. Downside for them is they have lost a bit of time and maybe the PK players change.

With the introduction of a forced stoppage, they recover that time, but have basically a 50/50 chance of getting possession the next face off.

So the question is if you would rather take your chances on gaining the zone with the benefit of possession and numbers, or winning a face off.

Frankly I expect the PK teams work on chipping it out, same as icing with a bit less weight on the dump out and forcing the PP team to regroup.

I don't think this rule change is fixing any real problem.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, which is why I think the best thing to do would be to just add 10 seconds to the penalty for every icing, but keep the play flowing.

It might give the defending a chance to change some tired players to avoid injuries or taking more penalties, but the team with the PP gets the time back to set up in the offensive zone again without a stoppage or faceoff.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree, which is why I think the best thing to do would be to just add 10 seconds to the penalty for every icing, but keep the play flowing.

It might give the defending a chance to change some tired players to avoid injuries or taking more penalties, but the team with the PP gets the time back to set up in the offensive zone again without a stoppage or faceoff.

2 minutes is plenty of time. I would personally pass on stretching it out because the team is good at the PK and penalizing them further

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They originally had this rule and they changed it because the Habs at the time were just lighting people up on the power play, it becomes a lopsided advantage.

meh, because something happened at one time in the history of league shouldn't be a good reason to not try something.

I could see teams upping the diving if it was a two minute advantage because frankly the NHL still doesn't call enough embellishment.

Agree with this completely.

I don't get why we keep having these rules to "Increase scoring". Its not about increasing scoring, that's not the problem with the game. I've seen awful games that were 7-6, I've seen thrilling, brilliant, awesome games that were -0.

The rule changes should be about improving flow. Changing the penalty killing rules like this doesn't do that.

The NHL is interested in pulling in non-traditional markets. Like it or not scoring does that.

To be clear, I am not saying changes should be made tomorrow in the NHL, but there should be a trial of this in a lower league to see.

At the end of the day, sports like most things in life evolve.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by SebC

Even the best in the league loses 37% of his face-offs.

This. And in U14 hockey, it has less to do with the center taking the draw but more with what happens in the next few seconds following the draw.

[Ashasx]

Anything to make powerplays more important is a good thing in my book.

If the average powerplay operates at like 27% instead of 17%, it makes it that much more important for players not to take penalties, so there should be less obstruction, clutching, grabbing, and stick infractions 5 on 5, which will improve the flow of the game immensely.

[the2bears]

I'm not convinced that this will improve the potency of a power-play. As mentioned, by adding icing back the PP team stands a good chance of losing possession. To be fair, though, would this outweigh the chances of losing it anyway on a dump in or zone entry?

I don't like the idea of additional stoppages in play though.