Wheels are in motion - Icing rule could die

Here is an email that I got from Forrest Karr in response to my an earlier email that I sent to the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee. It would appear that the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee has blinked in regard to the ice rule that doesn't allow a penalized team to ice the puck when they are killing a penalty.

The committee actually voted to forward 22 proposals to
the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. I think this is important as most
of these proposals have overwhelming support from the coaching body.
The Committee also voted to forward two points of emphasis, three
experimental rules and two future considerations.

Over the past two days, Ty Halpin (NCAA), Ed McLaughlin (Director of
Athletics at Niagara University and incoming Rules Committee Chair)
and I have participated on conference calls with the five men's DI
commissioners, the CCHA coaches, and the ECAC coaches. Ed also
participated on a call with the Atlantic Hockey coaches. These calls
were productive and should benefit college hockey in the future.

The coaches wanted to know how they can influence the icing proposal's
fate. We told them that a form will be sent out today (Thursday, June
17, 2010) and that they will have until July 2, 2010 to comment on any
proposals. At that point, the Rules Committee will have an opportunity
to review the feedback and get together on a conference call before
deciding which final proposals will be forwarded to the Playing Rules
Oversight Panel.

Regarding the icing rule, we anticipate one of the following four results:
1) The Rules Committee decides not to advance the proposal to enforce
icing when teams are shorthanded,
2) The Rules Committee decides to advance the proposal with the
modification that a shorthanded team icing the puck is allowed to
change players,
3) The Rules Committee reviews the feedback and decides to move
forward with the proposal as voted upon originally, or
4) The Rules Committee decides to advance the proposal as an
experimental rule for the 2010-12 rule book.

Any of these results are acceptable and we are not advocating for a
specific result. We hope that participation in the next phase is high so the
committee has the best possible data to fine tune final proposals
before moving them forward. The committee is working hard to make the
game better and to reach the best conclusions given the information
received.