Marginal ones. Neutral zone ones. Penalizing a player who illegally takes away a scoring chance is fine.
Penalties are often subjective. Icing is more black and white.
Marginal ones. Neutral zone ones. Penalizing a player who illegally takes away a scoring chance is fine.
Penalties are often subjective. Icing is more black and white.
Not the way it's called. Linesmen will give the puck carrier credit for gaining the red line even when they are a few feet away.
Offsides, on the other hand, is called very strictly. Too strictly, in fact. Way too many false positives.
PurpleMouse
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2014
- 393
- 182
The option here is to automatically waive icing off if you have another player over the red line at the time the puck is thrown down the ice. That could reduce the amount of times you see where the guy touches it just over the red line to eliminate the icing and then races to the bench for a line change. Don't know if that would be an improvement or not.
The only problem I have with icing calls are the teams that try to cheat by taking players off and delaying the game even further without additional penalty.
Well, I think the issue is that it's never easy to determine if the puck was touched or not. I think that's also the issue with offsides, it's not always easy to tell if a guy was an inch offside or onside. I feel like these rules are almost a little too precise in their definition, especially at the high speed of the game and the need to call the play in a fraction of a second. The answer isn't necessarily to review everything (I don't want a 5 minute review of whether a player touched the puck along the boards to negate the icing), but I think the precise nature of these rules need relaxed. It's really strange sometimes. Icing is called if a player misses the puck by 2 inches along the boards, but isn't always called when a player blasts the puck a foot from gaining the red line.
XanderCrews34
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2014
- 748
- 373
Also, it's a nice touch that there isn't a commercial break if an icing caused the stoppage in play.
I think they should implement no-icings on the PK. That would be some beautiful stuff to watch.
I think they should implement no-icings on the PK. That would be some beautiful stuff to watch.
Few feet? They definitely get credit for forward momentum, but a few feet is exaggerated. A few feet is an error by the linesman and an official would tell you that.
Didn't they count the offside reviews and the refs were almost always right? I'm happy with taking their judgement on these calls considering their record.
I agree with the stepping over the red line though - they could do better by being less generous.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
So then why wasn't the rulebook written that penalties only exist with regards to scoring chances? Players are meant to follow the rules all over the ice. If it's really a nothing play, why is it worth illegally impeding your opponent?
Icing absolutely isn't cut and dry. It seems like there's a lot of discretion that goes into whether it was intentional, whether a defenceman could have played it, whether he could have caught the puck if he was skating hard, whether the pass recipient would have received the pass if he wasn't impeded by an opponent, etc. There is definitely room for linesmen to be "lenient" or "strict" on icings if they wanted to.
Certain penalties, of course, are way more cut-and-dry than icing, like flipping the puck over the glass, breaking someone's stick on a slash, and high-sticking.
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
well, the flow is also ruined by those pesky offsides, penalties, opening faceoffs, fights, goals and frozen pucks...! - and POG!
Get rid of all of them I say so the game can have a more constant flow...
Get rid of all of them I say so the game can have a more constant flow...
IcedCapp
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2009
- 35,960
- 13,544
Thank you. Tired of people blaming officials for enforcing rules. MUH FLOW
Stop committing infractions then.
Novacane
Registered User
What ruins the flow is a linesman who takes it upon himself to get on his soapbox about positioning after an icing. Just drop the damn puck! There should be no time between getting lined up and the drop. You don't have to get the guys skate half an inch behind where it is because it's going to slide up anyway. It's one of my biggest pet peeves
You're right, and I agree that it shouldn't be situational but the penalties often are. I honestly don't have a problem with the ref letting little stuff go that doesn't impede a scoring chance or breakout opportunity etc.
I wish the icing rule would go back to the way it was. The hybrid leaves more room for judgment by the official.
The NHL is so focused on little ish like this when they should be more concerned about the state of the business. It won't matter much when we're locked out again.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
At the end of the day, "flow of the game" isn't something that can be managed. It's the players who decide how they play the game. It's the players who should be blamed for playing boring, uninspiring hockey and lauded for playing quick, intense, fast-paced hockey.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Icing calls do disrupt the flow, but so does having teams slinging the puck back and forth the length of the ice. It's kind of a no win situation.
The real solution is to open up the game in such a way that it's more effective to carry the puck than to dump it.
The real solution is to open up the game in such a way that it's more effective to carry the puck than to dump it.
should icings result in a penalty ?
For every 3 icings a team takes it will result in a minor penalty. Would create more scoring in the game and would make the flow much better. There is an average of 9 icings per game so if we cut that in half it would create a much more fast paced game. Your thoughts ?
For every 3 icings a team takes it will result in a minor penalty. Would create more scoring in the game and would make the flow much better. There is an average of 9 icings per game so if we cut that in half it would create a much more fast paced game. Your thoughts ?
Jerzey Devil
Jerzey-Duz-It
Icing confuses people who don't really watch hockey. To them it seems like they're blowing the whistle for no reason. The two-line pass was the worst.
I'd be fine if they got rid of icing and the trapezoid.
I'd be fine if they got rid of icing and the trapezoid.
This is when i don't like icing. If the puck was clearly playable by a teammate, but they just miss it. I wish they'd go back to the in the area kind of call I believe they used to do. Other than that, I'm fine with it.
That's well and good, but if the rules provide an advantage for playing boring, uninspired hockey, that's what the smart teams will do.
123TripleDoge
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2014
- 3,223
- 249
When you ice the a puck, a puck should come thru the boards at a random spot back in the zone of the ppl who iced it. Also, enforce a 3 second violation for offenses / defenses that just stand in front of goalie
OvermanKingGainer
#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Flow is generally a term used for gas and liquid states.
Icing is a solid state, therefore it is not expected to flow.
Icing is a solid state, therefore it is not expected to flow.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I can't think of any way in which that is true of hockey. Is this conversation not about the icing rule, which discourages icing the puck? Are all of the penalties in the rule book not designed, if properly called, to prevent teams from impeding their opponents and slowing the game down?
I mean, other sports have such an advantage. In football, the clock stops on an incomplete pass or out of bounds, and so teams in the lead toward the end of the game will simply keep mashing the ball up the middle, waiting as long as possible between plays and then punting. In basketball, your opponent instantly gets two free throws on a non-shooting foul if you accrue enough fouls in the quarter, meaning you can prevent your opponent from eating the clock and hope to mount a comeback by instantly fouling them, and breaking the game up into tiny chunks of play between long stoppages in the final minutes. These are examples of rules encouraging boring, uninspired play. No such thing exists in hockey that I can think of.
icon6668
Registered User
- Jul 22, 2012
- 177
- 18
I still don't like the fact that you can ice the puck on a PK and not get a whistle.
You're being penalized so you're a man down, yet you basically get a rule change that allows you to do what one team can't and smash it down the other end without an icing call and get a slight rest or line change etc
They need to change it so the rules are the same throughout the whole game. If you're on a PK you should still have the same rules apply.
You're being penalized so you're a man down, yet you basically get a rule change that allows you to do what one team can't and smash it down the other end without an icing call and get a slight rest or line change etc
They need to change it so the rules are the same throughout the whole game. If you're on a PK you should still have the same rules apply.
I agreed with everything you said except the 2 line pass part. That rule killed the flow even more back when it was in the league. Taking it out was a blessing for scoring.
Scoring is a pain right now and you want to bring back the 2 line pass?
Anyways,
I think they just need to bring in No Touch icing. Get rid of the ******** "hybrid" icing.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Speculation: Who will be the next head coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins? (36 Viewers)- Latest: Big Friggin Dummy
-
