NO ICING ON PENALTIES FOR YOUTH HOCKEY

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:58 am

boblee wrote: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.
I also wonder if stronger teams will be incentivized to pull their goalies on a PP for an extra attacker. Little chance that a shorthanded team will be able to skate a puck out to center ice and get a clean shot off when it's 4 on 6.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:03 am

I'm guessing all coaches will still tell the kids "ice the puck"...take the whistle... Reset..So to me I see very little changing in the form of "more offense".

Thinking out loud. At the squirt and pee wee level, I loved it when the opposing team iced the puck shorthanded. We'd simply put our higher skilled kids on defense, let them wind it up from our zone, take off with all that open space and skate around the 4 defensive skaters. I would guess more PP goals were scored this way than setting up a play in the offensive zone.

So in some ways this new rule could actually REDUCE the number of PP goals at the squirt /pee wee level.

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 7260
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:45 am

SCBlueLiner wrote: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.
Legend has it that the "can ice the puck with no whistle while killing a penalty" rule was originally put in place WAY back, in the 1920's I believe. The reason why it was put in place was supposedly due to the Montreal Canadians being so dominant that they would score almost at will when on the power play. The NHL apparently felt it necessary to give their opponents a break by allowing them to ice the puck when they were a man short.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:19 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote: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.
Legend has it that the "can ice the puck with no whistle while killing a penalty" rule was originally put in place WAY back, in the 1920's I believe. The reason why it was put in place was supposedly due to the Montreal Canadians being so dominant that they would score almost at will when on the power play. The NHL apparently felt it necessary to give their opponents a break by allowing them to ice the puck when they were a man short.
The more you know.

I understand the reasons for USA Hockey to make the rule change, I just don't think it will have the intended result. I see more games being bogged down with whistles and the flow of the game interrupted.

East Side Pioneer Guy
Posts: 1348
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:43 pm

Post by East Side Pioneer Guy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:20 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote: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.
Legend has it that the "can ice the puck with no whistle while killing a penalty" rule was originally put in place WAY back, in the 1920's I believe. The reason why it was put in place was supposedly due to the Montreal Canadians being so dominant that they would score almost at will when on the power play. The NHL apparently felt it necessary to give their opponents a break by allowing them to ice the puck when they were a man short.
This sounds like the rule about getting your skater back after coughing up a goal on a penalty kill. That was instituted (I believe) in the 50's, again because Les Habitants were so dominant on the power play. And I'd like to ditch that rule too. We need more goals in hockey. (Though maybe at the youth level, you'd get your guy back after a certain goal differential, maybe 4.) But, newsflash here, the 1950's era Canadiens are no longer dominate, nor did they ever play MN youth teams.

It's similar with playing 5 on 5 during offsetting penalties. That was due not to one team's dominance, but to one player's dominance, Gretzky. Again, Gretzky no longer plays, and never played MN youth hockey. I like 4 on 4. It's creates a different dynamic and a wrinkle in the game. Oh and, hey, more goals too.

Its good to try to predict how proposed rules will play out, but you just never know until you try. If there are unforeseen negative consequences, just make adjustments, or even go back to the old way. If we never tried anything different, we'd still be playing with balls instead of flat pucks, have the rover position.

It's only a game.

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 7260
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:24 pm

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote:
This sounds like the rule about getting your skater back after coughing up a goal on a penalty kill.
You are right, my bad, got the two rules mixed up.

Post Reply