NO ICING ON PENALTIES FOR YOUTH HOCKEY

[elliott70]

USAH has decided it will be better for development of players to not allow them to ice the puck when on a penalty.

Thoughts?

[zooomx]

USAH has decided it will be better for development of players to not allow them to ice the puck when on a penalty.

Thoughts?

Well, if you have 2 somewhat evenly matched teams, it probably makes sense. If you have 2 uneven teams, it is a mess. The weaker team in youth hockey already struggles to get the puck out of the zone, with icing available. Unfortunately, in youth hockey, the teams are rarely evenly matched, so this will be ugly for game play. Glad both my skaters are in high school now.

[yesiplayedhockey]

50/50

On one side of the fence you could argue to remove icing entirely out of the lower levels of youth hockey (Mites, squirts and maybe pee wee)

By doing this you would teach the kids the importance of puck possession, force the kids to always hustle, and you could probably increase the periods from 12 minutes to maybe 15-17

On the other hand sometimes a whistle is good as it is needed to change lines (about the only time a wholesale line change occurs in squirts is with a whistle)

As it pertains to making it a rule on a penalty, I don't see a ton of value in it. Squirt power plays are effective maybe 10% of the time and you could argue at that level there may be just as many short handed goals as there are power play goals. I don't think you will see more power play goals just because a squirt can't ice it.

I do not like the rule change if it effects levels at the Bantam or U14 level ...Pee wee is the grey area for me. I could go either way as I think there a pro's and con's for both sides... Great topic though love to see everyones thoughts

[SCBlueLiner]

The rule change applies to Bantams on down.

[BodyShots]

Who came up with this idea and what are the benefits? I can only see a lot of negatives with this decision:

1. One more reason to keep your best players on the ice at all times.
2. Do the tired players get to change when they ice it, or are we going to make them stay on the ice after an icing?
3. More wasted time for another face off. DROP THE PUCK!!!!

I just watched the Stanley Cup playoffs and a team like Nashville didn't care if they iced the puck or not. If the net was open, they were going to shoot for it at every opportunity. It's all about relieving the pressure.

[thestickler07]

while difficult, this change will definitely be for the best - hockey is becoming a more and more skilled game at higher levels and puck possession is key.

might lead to some tougher scorelines at the lower levels but this is a welcome change in my book

[Goal_Judge]

I am with BodyShots. Teams will continue to ice the puck. What's more, if it is late in the game, icing will become even more prevalent for the shorthanded team that is leading, as it will allow the 60 minute or 75 minute clock (depending on the level) to run off more time. My guess is that you will see more and more games end with time still on the game clock, due to the "max time" clock running out. That result is always satisfying!

[SCBlueLiner]

Penalty kill, even strength, it doesn't matter, if my players are under intense pressure in our end and we're running out of gas they have the green light to ice the puck any time, especially our defenseman. I'd rather deal with a face-off than the puck end up in the back of the net.

Now, with this rule change you will not see some great evolution in the methods of killing a penalty. Teams will not hold the puck and attempt to pass or skate the puck out because the resulting risk of a turnover in the defensive zone while shorthanded is far worse than a defensive zone face-off. Players will continue to ice the puck.

The results will be more stoppages of play and more face-offs. In cases where there is a running clock or up against the game time limit, what better way to kill the penalty or game than by having time run off while play is stopped. Also, the PK can now change their lines during the whistle rather than having to do so on the fly. That is an advantage to the PK, especially during the long change of the 2nd period.

I understand where USA Hockey is trying to come from with this rule. They are trying to put an emphasis on skill development instead of chucking the puck down the ice. I don't think it is going to turn out the way they envision and the negatives coming out of it outweigh the positives.

It will end up being like every other change. The old-timers will lament the way things used to be, that this is a stupid rule. The newbies to the sport won't know any better. As time goes on the complaining will die off, kind of like banning checking in Pee Wees.

[MNHockeyFan]

No mention of adding the other icing rule whereby teams playing at even-strength cannot change players after icing the puck (applies at the college and professional levels). Or how about the rule that waives off icing when a player on the icing team is judged to win the race to the puck at the faceoff dot?

I'd certainly be in favor of both of these changes at the high school level.

[nahc]

Why tinker with changes in the rules that aren't needed? Has there been an outcry from teams that when on a power play, the other team ices the puck? I'm not understanding........

[thestickler07]

No mention of adding the other icing rule whereby teams playing at even-strength cannot change players after icing the puck (applies at the college and professional levels). Or how about the rule that waives off icing when a player on the icing team is judged to win the race to the puck at the faceoff dot?

I'd certainly be in favor of both of these changes at the high school level.

there is virtually no chance hybrid icing comes to lower level hockey

[goldy313]

I have wondered why this hasn't hapened at the pro level to increase scoring and cut down on the senseless violence that occurs on occasion.

In youth I guess I really don't see the point.....the team being penalized, more often than not, isn't as good as their opponent anyway and now they can't even ice the puck to relieve the pressure for 10-20 seconds. At some levels this will lead to more lopsided outcomes which in turn leads to more frustration which leads to more penalties......

[thespellchecker]

The rule change applies to Bantams on down.

there goes our hour of ice time, we didn't get to complete the squirt game again. Thanks

[Stripes2011]

As an official I do hope common sense plays into this decision when MN Hockey votes on this. Teams will still Ice the puck. This just means we will have more ref's chasing the puck and more faceoff's. Most of us have been around this game long enough to know coaches / parents / players would prefer their team icing the puck rather then attempt to stickhandle around an opponent in the defensive zone. I do not think this would have any impact on "player Development"

[elliott70]

As an official I do hope common sense plays into this decision when MN Hockey votes on this. Teams will still Ice the puck. This just means we will have more ref's chasing the puck and more faceoff's. Most of us have been around this game long enough to know coaches / parents / players would prefer their team icing the puck rather then attempt to stickhandle around an opponent in the defensive zone. I do not think this would have any impact on "player Development"

This has already been passed by USAH.
It is a new rule.
MH voted against it but MH has 4 votes out of about 72.

I do not think MH can do anything about it other than kiss USAH goodbye.

[Goal_Judge]

Another likely problem will be that referees, who grow weary of the criticism and issues associated with ending a game with time still on the game clock, will simply call less penalties. This, in turn, will make the game more dangerous at the youth level. The "development" will be for kids to see how far they can get away with something before a penalty will be called.

[SCBlueLiner]

As an official I do hope common sense plays into this decision when MN Hockey votes on this. Teams will still Ice the puck. This just means we will have more ref's chasing the puck and more faceoff's. Most of us have been around this game long enough to know coaches / parents / players would prefer their team icing the puck rather then attempt to stickhandle around an opponent in the defensive zone. I do not think this would have any impact on "player Development"

This has already been passed by USAH.
It is a new rule.
MH voted against it but MH has 4 votes out of about 72.

I do not think MH can do anything about it other than kiss USAH goodbye.

Elliot, I responded to you in the youth hockey thread about Bantam checking and alluded to this. I like USA Hockey and want it to be successful but some of the decisions they have been making lately, whether right/wrong or if I agree/disagree, are rubbing a lot of people the wrong way and I fear they may be going down the path of their own destruction. If a market is created somebody will come in to fill it, AAU probably. USA Hockey has the best of intentions but they may just end up causing serious harm to their organization.

[elliott70]

As an official I do hope common sense plays into this decision when MN Hockey votes on this. Teams will still Ice the puck. This just means we will have more ref's chasing the puck and more faceoff's. Most of us have been around this game long enough to know coaches / parents / players would prefer their team icing the puck rather then attempt to stickhandle around an opponent in the defensive zone. I do not think this would have any impact on "player Development"

This has already been passed by USAH.
It is a new rule.
MH voted against it but MH has 4 votes out of about 72.

I do not think MH can do anything about it other than kiss USAH goodbye.

Elliot, I responded to you in the youth hockey thread about Bantam checking and alluded to this. I like USA Hockey and want it to be successful but some of the decisions they have been making lately, whether right/wrong or if I agree/disagree, are rubbing a lot of people the wrong way and I fear they may be going down the path of their own destruction. If a market is created somebody will come in to fill it, AAU probably. USA Hockey has the best of intentions but they may just end up causing serious harm to their organization.

I could see this happening if they continue to make changes for what ever reason.
They continue to throw two things in people's face...
Its for development.
You could lose your insurance coverage.

The 'development' argument throws me on this one.
Are they (all the various powers) planning to eventually remove icing from penalty kills? So the skill of PK (defensively and offensively) does not need to be taught/learned?
Stick handling skill opportunity will be enhanced because now you cannot ice the puck any more? So a kid has to skate past two players rather than one?
Passing the puck through an extra man, receiving it same thing...
Seems to be practice things not game things.
So if you change the game at the younger level what happens at the older level?
I think USAH better serves their constituents by giving advice rather than mandates and changing the game to accommodate 'development' (especially when most participants are there for FUN and will not play Olympic or national teams or college teams).

I hope it does not come to it, but I hope AAU and others are ready for an influx.

[Wet Paint]

This has already been passed by USAH.
It is a new rule.
MH voted against it but MH has 4 votes out of about 72.

I do not think MH can do anything about it other than kiss USAH goodbye.

Elliot, I responded to you in the youth hockey thread about Bantam checking and alluded to this. I like USA Hockey and want it to be successful but some of the decisions they have been making lately, whether right/wrong or if I agree/disagree, are rubbing a lot of people the wrong way and I fear they may be going down the path of their own destruction. If a market is created somebody will come in to fill it, AAU probably. USA Hockey has the best of intentions but they may just end up causing serious harm to their organization.

I could see this happening if they continue to make changes for what ever reason.
They continue to throw two things in people's face...
Its for development.
You could lose your insurance coverage.

The 'development' argument throws me on this one.
Are they (all the various powers) planning to eventually remove icing from penalty kills? So the skill of PK (defensively and offensively) does not need to be taught/learned?
Stick handling skill opportunity will be enhanced because now you cannot ice the puck any more? So a kid has to skate past two players rather than one?
Passing the puck through an extra man, receiving it same thing...
Seems to be practice things not game things.
So if you change the game at the younger level what happens at the older level?
I think USAH better serves their constituents by giving advice rather than mandates and changing the game to accommodate 'development' (especially when most participants are there for FUN and will not play Olympic or national teams or college teams).

I hope it does not come to it, but I hope AAU and others are ready for an influx.

I look at this issue over time and can see where USAH is going down a different road that MNHock. The age deal. Checking removed. Now this icing change. To me it looks like they are catering to a different group of people and personally I think it might be time to walk away (or skate away) from USAH. I am sure the insurance angle can be fixed given the size of the organization, and just off the top of my head without any scientific evidence what so ever I would say MN is doing pretty well when it comes to developing hockey players to move on in the world of hockey.

[SCBlueLiner]

Elliott, you probably know this, back when I was a young hockey player (70s and 80s) for some reason I thought that MAHA was not a part of AHAUS (USA Hockey) and then joined AHAUS at some point. Am I wrong there? Was MAHA ever just a stand alone body?

As far as the age bands go, I hear that South Dakota is going to the USA Hockey birth year and North Dakota will be following soon. Minnesota will stand alone and be the only one in the country with the July/June age bands.

[elliott70]

Elliott, you probably know this, back when I was a young hockey player (70s and 80s) for some reason I thought that MAHA was not a part of AHAUS (USA Hockey) and then joined AHAUS at some point. Am I wrong there? Was MAHA ever just a stand alone body?

According to legal documents and my conversations with old timers (when doe one become one of these?) this is true. But we were competing on the national level during the 60's, but whether by invitation or by belonging I do not know.

As far as the age bands go, I hear that South Dakota is going to the USA Hockey birth year and North Dakota will be following soon. Minnesota will stand alone and be the only one in the country with the July/June age bands.

Not sure if North Dakota will go that route or not. To compete with teams in their USAH affiliate area, yes. But they have strong connections with MN.

[Browniemagoo]

I actually like the new rule...think it's fair and will lead to more SHG as well as PPG. As far as skill development goes, it takes a lot more skill to chip a puck out of the zone without icing than it does to just throw it down the ice. Plus instead of just getting the puck down the ice, players can look to spring a teammate on a break. I know change is tough, and ending a game with time on the clock stinks, but I hope they implement the rule through the highest level of hockey.

[East Side Pioneer Guy]

I've long that penalizing a team, then allowing them to break a lesser rule is very strange. Is there another sport that does that? It would be like a football team (with ball possession) getting a 10 yard penalty, but hey, let's give them an extra down to make it easier on them.

I'd like to see the soccer scores end, and one way to do that is to stop allowing penalized teams to break a different rule.

How it would play out at various levels, we can only speculate. Give it a go, make adjustments as needed.

[SCBlueLiner]

I believe that there is a reason for every rule. I speculate that when icing was created the hockey people quickly realized that during penalty situations the game got bogged down by whistles and therefore made a rule allowing icing during penalty situations in order to keep the game flowing. That's just my guess though.

I'm not old enough to remember that far back. Maybe some others are.

[boblee]

The reasoning here is to develop more skill at the youth levels. Kids will be forced to be better at breaking the puck out, forechecking and playing in the neutral zone. It seems likely that this will also lead to more power play goals and a bigger spread in-game between top tier and further down tier teams. They can still ice the puck to gather a whistle and a breather.