Check out what NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee chair Forrest Karr, had to say about their horrible proposed icing rule. Seriously folks, they are clueless the AHA, WCHA and CCHA voted 35-0 against the proposed icing rule that would not allow a team on the penalty kill to ice the puck and they went ahead and proposed the rule any ways. If the NCAA wants to address something focus on the quality of officiating in college hockey.
The Rules Committee — which is comprised of men's and women's coaches, and school athletic directors, from Division I and III — can change rules every two years. Leading up to its June meetings, it gathers opinions and information, including during the Coaches Convention in Naples, Fla., which takes place each April. This year, like others, Karr's group distributed a rules survey in order to seek out consensus opinion on various ideas.
Karr said that, despite the outcry that came out after the fact, there was no overwhelming consensus for or against the icing changes. He did say, however, that it seemed, going into the June meetings, that the rule wouldn't pass. But, after hearing a number of presentations, the majority of the members of the committee thought it was a good idea — simple as that.
"Most people on the committee probably did not expect that rule to pass — I know I didn't," Karr said. "But once we got presentations from the commissioners, from the NHL, once we had discussion about people using it at USA camps — we got information and we decided on that day it would be the best thing for the game. ...
"Most of us that serve on the committee do it despite the fact that it takes a lot of time away from family. We're passionate about it. We want to see the game improve. ... The committee is not some strange entity where people don't know who's on it. It's 12 living, breathing people who have opinions about the game. They collect the information that's been presented and try to do what's best."
Karr said the committee addressed concerns about players getting too tired, especially when combined with the rule that doesn't allow line changes after an icing. But Karr said that many on the committee liked the idea of forcing the defensive team to be more creative in killing the penalty, which would give the power-play team more time in the offensive zone.
"You might see more scoring chances created," Karr said. "The negative is, coaches might just want to ice it every time and get the whistles (anyway), so there would be more whistles. But then there would be a risk of getting scored on, because we know on faceoffs, it's more likely a goal is scored. ... Overall there was also a feeling that it could even change the behavior of players, in that players would be less willing to take as many penalties — not do as much clutching and grabbing if there would be a more strict penalty once in the box, because the team would face more repurcussions.
"The people in the committee care about hockey. They felt it would be a better form of hockey."
Karr understood the criticism that the rule hadn't been tested very much, but said it got positive reports from its limited use. [College Hockey News]
So instead of instructing the refs to call more of the clutching and grabbing that IS reducing the amount of scoring opportunities per game, they come up with this cockamamie rule to make the punishment harsher. This is a rules committee, so I’m not surprised, but I’m afraid of the damage that could be done if this actually becomes a rule.
ReplyDeleteThis rule equals: more pucks in the stands, more whistles, more injuries, more penalties, less flow to the game, and I’m not even convinced that it will increase PP goals by that much. Players will still ice the puck on the PK; a 15sec break is better than no break at all.