| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
umteman
PickupHockey Pro
USA
662 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2010 : 14:17:59
|
A scrimmage was recently held in Toronto to test possible rule changes:
http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=536195&cmpid=pit-fb-pghpenguins
Your thoughts on the changes being considered?
Personally I think the "hybrid" or no touch up icing is an idea worth considering for safety reasons, though I don't like the idea of moving the faceoff circles. How about a center getting to choose who he faces off against if the ref sends the opposing center out?
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?"
|
|
|
SJfortheCUP
Top Prospect
Canada
5 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 14:33:00
|
| I watched some of the shootout moves they were sick |
 |
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 16:38:58
|
I think the no touch icing is the rule they should apply.
But a rule that they suggested that I thought was a little bit far fetched is when a team is offside they can't make a line change, just like the icing. I don't agree with this rule... |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 22:40:04
|
| I love the "Hybrid Icing" call. Reason being that i hate to see the long pass off the end boards or around the net to a streaking winger taken away. I love seeing a guy launch the puck intentionally wide of the net from his own side of center to the opposite winger coming in and getting it off the end boards! This, imo, shouldn't be icing! |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 10:09:14
|
In that old Master Debater topic we had, I argued in favour of this hybrid icing; so I believe this to be a major improvement. Heck, it would be an improvement if they just went to no touch icing!
The "no line change" offside rule is obviously horrible. Think of when a defenceman attempts to keep the puck in at the line, and it goes just over the blue line as he's pulling it back in. Is he supposed to just purposely let it go out now, instead of making the attempted keep-in? Not to mention all of the other offsides that occur...
I also am strongly against a team selecting the opposing faceoff player. I appreciate the idea behind it, but I would rather that teams get to make their own choices. This would be like picking what goalie you want to shoot in the shootout. It doesn't mention in this article that they were also thinking about only being able to choose from the opposition forwards - however, that would only be a 50/50 decision due to the fact there are only 2 remaining forwards choose from.
Clear net tops: whatever helps with goal judgement is ok with me.
Yellow secondary goal-line: Again, whatever helps with goal judgement is ok with me. I used to think that having the ice inside the net a fraction of an inch lower than the rest of the ice would be a great way to prove that pucks went fully over the line (since they wouldn't be easily slid back out again). Whatever helps.
Switching ends for overtime seems like a good idea too.
Not allowing shorthanded teams to ice the puck is something that people have been talking about since the 80s - I don't know why they haven't implemented this one yet.
Forced clearing on delayed penalties is very interesting...I am unsure as to whether this is very meaningful at all. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 10:31:12
|
I would like to see:
- hybrid icing. I too would like to see this, but as Alex says, I don't want to take away the play that starts off on your side of the ice but finishes with your forward stuffing the puck in the net :-)
- no line change offsides, but for INTENTIONAL offside only. If the offside is incidental and the faceoff is just outside the zone, then line change is OK. If it is intentional, then the faceoff comes down to the other end, and no line change - same as icing.
And that is it. There was some talk to abandoning the delay of game penalty for the flipping the puck out from your own end, but I hope that stays, I think its a good penalty - even though SOB has been burned by it too many times :-)
|
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 14:25:44
|
I liked the rule of having an official on a raised platform in the stands, it creates more room on the ice and allows the official to see more. I also liked the shallower net creating more room behind the net.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 18:24:54
|
quote:
I liked the rule of having an official on a raised platform in the stands
As long as he doesn't block the view from my seats, I'm cool with that too  |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 17:36:55
|
| Not allowing a team to ice a puck while shorthanded to me is ridiculous, the reason being, teams are going to continue to do so anyway as it's sometimes their only choice. This of course would lead to more and more icing calls which on one hand would increase scoring (faceoffs in the offensive zone for the PP vs tired PK guys who wouldn't be allowed to change) but on the other, would increase play stoppages! I'm okay with the PP's the way they are. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 22:34:11
|
| Hope the hybrid icing goes in, no touch is a little bit too much for me. At times, linesmen already call off icing anyway, so adding hybrid icing would simply calling it early... |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
potential rule changes 
