Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

goldy313
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by goldy313 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:45 pm

My problem with the USA Hockey rule is two fold.....
1) no higher league uses that rule. Once in high school turnovers at the blue line can become catastrophic, where Just dumping it in can relieve pressure. Every coach needs to retract this USA hockey philosophy and every player needs to learn it at a late age.

2) No matter USA hockey’s opinion, dump and chase is a valid strategy. I liken it to youth football making a rule that you have to use the run pass option every play so they can develop the next level QB’s. NHL teams use dump and chase with certain lines and in certain situations for Pete’s sake! Not every kid can handle the puck well, not every player in the MLB can hit over .300, not every NFL QB is Pat Mahomes, not every NHL player is a great puck handler. We run too many kids out of the game because they are short in one skill.

Coaches need to teach skills but as kids progress in age the coach needs to adapt his game to his kids skills. Not some artificial rules some adults place on kids because they think a style is prettier than another. We have enough trouble with recruiting and retention. Driving kids out makes no sense.

Puck8
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:31 am

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by Puck8 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:52 am

Wise old man - I guess I just can’t match the credentials you so clearly laid out for us. But I have no idea how your diatribe on Northern/Outstate vs Metro teams and your insertion of transfer rules fit into this. How you were able to inject Hermantown into this is baffling.

That aside, we will have to agree to disagree on offside. All I know, is that at every game, I see offsides called immediately when a puck bounces off a skate or leg when there is zero chance to do all the regrouping and extra puck handling proposed. In addition, if dump and chase is seen as a mindless or lazy way to cover up shortcomings, then I’ll spare the nuances that good coaches will teach relative to dumping (where to put the puck relative to opponents and teammates, do I regroup or dump with momentum as my teammates vacate, do we take advantage and try to get a change, etc, etc). That’s what I was referring to when I stated that it takes strategy and hockey sense to maximize touch up offside.

For icing, I have no issue if the rule was called as you outlined. But every game, I see countless icings called when the defender could have gotten to the puck with just a little more reach or the D pinched or even went for a change at the moment an errant pass or clear goes right through the area he would have been. I would also argue that a puck that jumps over a defender’s stick should not be icing. You see it all the time when a defender simply misses it and the ref still calls icing. Keep the play moving and make the attacking team more accountable to play the reasonable loose pucks. Maybe it’s a ref education thing, but it needs to change.

Lastly, I don’t think you’re fully understanding my motivation. It’s not about making sure we fit the 36 minutes of play into 60 minutes of ice time. It is to seek ways to keep play active so we can increase the active play time to 40-44 minutes in that same hour. We can do that without impacting the integrity of the game. Touch up offside already exists at the higher level so I don’t see that compromising the game. Relaxing the icing calls in those situations I mentioned would only have a positive impact relative to keeping play active. The 2 halves vs 3 periods just seems like common sense at the younger ages and is done quite frequently in summer tourneys without any issue.
But then, I’m just a metro meddler who wants to change things for the metro teams and hurt the Northern/Outstate teams. 🙄

Puck8
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:31 am

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by Puck8 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:27 am

If touch up just isn’t reasonable, then I suggest they at least go back to where play is not stopped unless the offending team touches the puck in the offensive zone. This gives the advantage to the puck possession team and keeps play moving. Stopping play immediately when the puck crosses the line is too extreme considering all the ways we see the puck go over the line unintentionally.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by Wise Old Man » Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:16 pm

Wise old man - I guess I just can’t match the credentials you so clearly laid out for us. But I have no idea how your diatribe on Northern/Outstate vs Metro teams and your insertion of transfer rules fit into this. How you were able to inject Hermantown into this is baffling.

Puck, I guess I'm surprised you see my comments as a "diatribe" but, hey, it's a hockey message board so... And, if I misunderstood the nuance of your thoughts by interpreting them the way I did, then I genuinely apologize. My rationale for adding the transfer/open enrollment rule (and how Hermantown has benefitted from it) is simply that, in the pantheon of Minnesota Hockey-specific rules the change in eligibility has a far larger impact on the greater health of our "community based model" than any other rule.

That aside, we will have to agree to disagree on offside. All I know, is that at every game, I see offsides called immediately when a puck bounces off a skate or leg when there is zero chance to do all the regrouping and extra puck handling proposed. In addition, if dump and chase is seen as a mindless or lazy way to cover up shortcomings, then I’ll spare the nuances that good coaches will teach relative to dumping (where to put the puck relative to opponents and teammates, do I regroup or dump with momentum as my teammates vacate, do we take advantage and try to get a change, etc, etc). That’s what I was referring to when I stated that it takes strategy and hockey sense to maximize touch up offside.

Puck8, maybe I'm not understanding your explanation properly so, please forgive me for nitpicking your rationale. But, if a puck is played into a team's offensive zone with any of that team's players in the zone, of course it's an immediate whistle. How would it matter whether or not it "bounces off of a leg or skate". There isn't any subjective judgement on this rule for the officials. I'm sorry but, as long as any attacking player has the puck while a teammate is offsides, they always have a chance to regroup or use their skating and puck handling skills to hold the puck until their teammate(s) get onside. If you're not seeing those skills attempted, isn't that likely due to a lack of attention given to that skill in a practice setting -- i.e. coaching? As for your points regarding dumping the puck; yes, occasionally it's the right play and, there is a "skill" to doing it properly depending on the situation. However, at the youth level, I would hope we could agree that if we're going to emphasize one type of rule over another, we would emphasize rules that create greater opportunities for puck handling/possession vs ones that don't. Again, the research USA Hockey has done clearly supports these rules at these levels.

For icing, I have no issue if the rule was called as you outlined. But every game, I see countless icings called when the defender could have gotten to the puck with just a little more reach or the D pinched or even went for a change at the moment an errant pass or clear goes right through the area he would have been. I would also argue that a puck that jumps over a defender’s stick should not be icing. You see it all the time when a defender simply misses it and the ref still calls icing. Keep the play moving and make the attacking team more accountable to play the reasonable loose pucks. Maybe it’s a ref education thing, but it needs to change.

I agree there is much inconsistency in how icing is or isn't called, especially at the youth levels. But the vast majority of that is due to the lack of experience of officials at the youth level. To be clear, we need to train our officials better on the various nuances of the rule. Remember, just because a defenseman pinches, doesn't automatically negate an icing. For an icing to be waved in that situation, the puck must be along the ice and, would've been playable with normal effort had the player not pinched. However, and this goes to your bouncing puck frustration, the onus for icing is always on the team that initiates the puck down the ice. And, at literally every level and in every rule book, it is interpreted that if a puck is shot in the air all the way down the ice OR, simply bounces over an opponents stick who is attempting to play the puck as it goes by her, then icing is still in effect. So, if a player pinches but the puck goes by them in the air, icing should still be called. Now, if the puck is sliding along the ice and a player misses an easily playable puck, then obviously that icing should be waved. Again, are there officials out there that don't understand the nuances and thus create confusion on this rule? Absolutely. However, you seem to disagree with the interpretations I have explained. If you really feel that strongly about how you feel we should interpret icing, I suggest you submit an official rule change proposal to USA Hockey.

Lastly, I don’t think you’re fully understanding my motivation. It’s not about making sure we fit the 36 minutes of play into 60 minutes of ice time. It is to seek ways to keep play active so we can increase the active play time to 40-44 minutes in that same hour. We can do that without impacting the integrity of the game. Touch up offside already exists at the higher level so I don’t see that compromising the game. Relaxing the icing calls in those situations I mentioned would only have a positive impact relative to keeping play active. The 2 halves vs 3 periods just seems like common sense at the younger ages and is done quite frequently in summer tourneys without any issue.
But then, I’m just a metro meddler who wants to change things for the metro teams and hurt the Northern/Outstate teams. 🙄

Puck8, again, if I'm misunderstanding your thoughts I apologize but, how else can you define what the "active play time" is other than that which occurs while the clock is running between the whistles when playing a "stop time" game? And if that's how we define it, then for every Squirt game isn't there 36 minutes of "active play time, in every Pee Wee game isn't there is 45 minutes of "active play time", and in every Bantam/Jr. Gold game isn't there is 51 minutes of "active play time"? Those numbers are what they are and no rule change can increase any of those times. Every single thing you are suggesting to change only helps keep the "active play time" going within the various period lengths mentioned. This in turn reduces the overall time it takes to play the game (including all stoppages). Thus, my previous inference that your suggestions to reduce what you believe are unnecessary stoppages in play and, to keep the actual game clock running, seemed aimed at ensuring a time limit game would have a maximum chance for completion. Which, as I stated previously, is mainly a metro issue. Personally, from a skill development standpoint, I feel that rules that emphasize "puck on stick" should generally outweigh any others. And, USA Hockey seems to agree. :)

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:04 pm

Puck8 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:27 am
If touch up just isn’t reasonable, then I suggest they at least go back to where play is not stopped unless the offending team touches the puck in the offensive zone. This gives the advantage to the puck possession team and keeps play moving. Stopping play immediately when the puck crosses the line is too extreme considering all the ways we see the puck go over the line unintentionally.
Split the baby in two, go back to the old delayed offside rule the NHL had prior to 1986-87. Meaning you can dump the puck in causing the delayed offside but the offensive team can't just tag up. The defensive team is allowed to break out of their zone without getting forechecked ( I suppose they could forecheck but play would stop immediately upon touching the puck. Maybe throw in a rule that would be an intentional offside). Improves the flow of the game as there are less stoppages and puck movement and skills are still developed as teams work to run plays and break out of their defensive zone through the neutral zone. Instead of focusing on neutral zone regrouping and puck possession we'd be focusing on breakouts and puck possession.

Puck8
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:31 am

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by Puck8 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:04 pm
Puck8 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:27 am
If touch up just isn’t reasonable, then I suggest they at least go back to where play is not stopped unless the offending team touches the puck in the offensive zone. This gives the advantage to the puck possession team and keeps play moving. Stopping play immediately when the puck crosses the line is too extreme considering all the ways we see the puck go over the line unintentionally.
Split the baby in two, go back to the old delayed offside rule the NHL had prior to 1986-87. Meaning you can dump the puck in causing the delayed offside but the offensive team can't just tag up. The defensive team is allowed to break out of their zone without getting forechecked ( I suppose they could forecheck but play would stop immediately upon touching the puck. Maybe throw in a rule that would be an intentional offside). Improves the flow of the game as there are less stoppages and puck movement and skills are still developed as teams work to run plays and break out of their defensive zone through the neutral zone. Instead of focusing on neutral zone regrouping and puck possession we'd be focusing on breakouts and puck possession.
Bingo! My focus throughout this discussion is to find ways to keep the play moving so there is more play time within each hour. And to be clear, keeping play moving allows you to increase period length by 2-3 minutes each, thereby allowing for more active play time. If tag up is not agreeable, then the advantage should go to the defending team. They maintain possession and can regroup for breakout while the offending team cannot attack. Keeps play moving.

O-townClown
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Re: Ideas that should be brought to the Minnesota Hockey Board

Post by O-townClown » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:20 pm

goldy313 wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:45 pm
My problem with the USA Hockey rule is two fold.....
1) no higher league uses that rule. Once in high school turnovers at the blue line can become catastrophic, where Just dumping it in can relieve pressure. Every coach needs to retract this USA hockey philosophy and every player needs to learn it at a late age.

2) No matter USA hockey’s opinion, dump and chase is a valid strategy. I liken it to youth football making a rule that you have to use the run pass option every play so they can develop the next level QB’s. NHL teams use dump and chase with certain lines and in certain situations for Pete’s sake! Not every kid can handle the puck well, not every player in the MLB can hit over .300, not every NFL QB is Pat Mahomes, not every NHL player is a great puck handler. We run too many kids out of the game because they are short in one skill.
Rules are in place to teach kids at teachable ages to become skilled players. Agreed with you that not all players can, but the "dumping it in to relieve pressure" takes away a chance for a 10 year old kid to try to make a play with someone on them.

Biggest problem with tag-up vs. automatic offsides in practice is that officials don't call intentional offsides every time. If they did you'd see coaches telling their neutral zone D to make a play. As is the coaches welcome the whistle to work a line change. Squirts can struggle to change on the fly.
Be kind. Rewind.

Post Reply