Fluto: For Americans 14 and younger, icing on penalty kill won’t be allowed

[Fenway]

This could be a game changer down the road

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/b...won-allowed/0iMTF9bSQxEGb77aKUEYGO/story.html

“How often in sports,†asked Ken Martel, technical director of USA Hockey’s American Development Model, “do you actually change your normal playing rules to benefit the team that was penalized?â€

To that end, USA Hockey has introduced a new rule for players 14 and younger for 2017-18. Penalty-killing teams will no longer be free to slingshot the puck down the river. Referees will call icing on shorthanded teams, just as they do during even-strength play. Upon an icing, the faceoff will take place in the defensive zone, giving power plays another chance to try a set piece off the draw.

The aim is to encourage U-14 players to read opposing power-play setups, think about what to do, and execute skilled plays: a D-to-D pass, a soft chip off the boards, or a floater to a streaking teammate. It is a far better thing to hold on to the puck than give it away, even if a 200-foot clear allows players to get off for changes.

“We want our kids to play with and handle the puck,†Martel said. “Puck possession is a big thing in our sport. We don’t like to see rules that encourage kids to blindly grab it and throw it away. You work pretty hard to get it. This rule actually encourages that. You listen to the anxiety that sometimes parents and coaches create from the stands, whether it’s, ‘Get it out,’ ‘Get it deep,’ ‘Ice it.’ Players’ first instinct when they get ahold of the puck is to get the head up and perceive what’s going on around them. The [old] rule doesnâ™t necessarily encourage that.â€

Click to read more...

 

[riverhawkey91]

Seems kind of cruel to be honest.

At that level, it's hard enough just winning the puck from the attacking team. Now they're going to have to make legitimate plays to get it out while they're gassed instead of icing it to get fresh legs? That's hard enough to do with 5 players when they're tired, let alone 4. Plus maybe it's just my hockey life experience here, but how many U14 players are even taught how to "read opposing power-play setups" or have actual established PK breakout plays in the first place?

I get what they're going for, I'm just not sure it'll work out that way. My guess is this ends up causing a lot more turnovers during attempted breakouts that result in goals rather than it actually helping the PK team get better.

edit - wanted to add that this is something they really should have just encouraged their coaches to teach rather than making it a rule. There are plenty of times during PKs where icing it is actually the right play to make, but with this rule they're basically going to coach the player's ability to make that decision properly right out of them. Officially don't like it.

double edit - don't have the Globe so I wasn't actually able to read the article, but I take all that back if there's anything in there about the NHL adopting that same rule at some point in the near future. I just don't like the idea of removing a player's ability to develop a skill they will actually need in order to force them to develop different skills...seems counter-productive to me.

 

[SpeedyLazaro]

I agree... another rule change I'd like to see is the "over the glass delay of game" become a short handed defensive zone face off where the penalized player can come back on the ice after the shirt handed clears the zone successfully without icing it.

2 minutes for an inncendental chip out that goes out of play is too much. A lot of it has to do with th design of the glass and seemles glass, etc

 

[KnightofBoston]

The NHL, making rules no one wants, never making rules everyone wants

 

[BruinLVGA]

I think that this is a mistake.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

I am 100% in support of this rule change. Have been for a long time.

It's one that never ever made sense to me.

 

[smithformeragent]

'Member hockey?

I member!

 

[roflstomper]

Yea let's make it so poor officiating has even bigger impacts on the game.

 

[BigBadBruin]

Will this lead to more puck handling and quicker passing? My guess is that it will just lead to more high dump outs that don't go down the ice and the icings will come from forwards who just deflect it into the zone. There is already too much of this in the game today. PKers still need to change quickly and that will be the focus of coaches, not trying to create offence on the PK.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

...

I am 100% in support of this rule change. Have been for a long time.

It's one that never ever made sense to me.

So have I. I'm interested to see how it affects the game for the younger kids. Plus, as an official, I know it's going to take a while before I'm not screwing up the calls.

 

[Marley]

In theory this is a good change but we'll see how it works out. A weak team going up agains a highly skilled team will continue to try to clear the puck down on the PK. And I'm pretty sure that even if a team on the PK ices the puck, they can still send out fresh players to take the draw in the defensive zone. Not like they go down another player for icing while on the kill.

 

[Bruins Uncensored]

Love it. This rule will age up with these players until it is at all levels.

Also- stop negating a penalty if a team scores before possession is attained by the infracting team.

Also- Don't end a penalty on a PP Goal for 2 minute penaltys

 

[spiller19]

I just finished minor hockey in 2014 playing in Alberta and we started hitting in peewee(12-13years old)I'm not sure what the rules are for hitting in the states but if hitting is allowed I feel like the penalty killers would be hit hard and frequently with less options and not being able to ice the puck. I think it will cause more injuries. I don't like that rule at all.

 

[JOKER 192]

In the era pf parity, this is exactly what should happen. This isn't the 50's Habs this is a diffrent era. No more icing tbe puck, no more pp ends with a goal , 2 minutes are 2 minutes, deal with it.

 

[smithformeragent]

I'm strongly against this change.

However, if they're going to make this a rule change, baseball needs to change a caught foul tip to an out.
No difference between a tipped ball that's caught and popped foul that's caught IMO.

 

[Ratty]

I am in favor of this rule. Make the penalized team work the puck at least to the blue line. Also support returning to the rule where penalized player serves the full two minutes.

Another rule change while we're at it, is to have the goaltender serve his penalty. There are, after all, two goalies on a team.

If the league wants more scoring, these ideas are ways to accomplish it without drastically altering the course of play.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Will this lead to more puck handling and quicker passing? My guess is that it will just lead to more high dump outs that don't go down the ice and the icings will come from forwards who just deflect it into the zone. There is already too much of this in the game today. PKers still need to change quickly and that will be the focus of coaches, not trying to create offence on the PK.

This isn't to encourage offense from the penalty kill.

It's to encourage skill play from the penalty kill and scoring from the power play.

A more consequential powerplay also means officials would be less likely to make calls without confidence... And players less likely to take liberties if being short-handed is more likely to result in a goal against.

People are saying that this change would make the PK more difficult. Of course it would. The way it is NOW, it's a rule exception that makes the POWERPLAY more difficult. The man-advantage. The team that did not commit the infraction.

 

[BigBadBruin]

This isn't to encourage offense from the penalty kill.

It's to encourage skill play from the penalty kill and scoring from the power play.

A more consequential powerplay also means officials would be less likely to make calls without confidence... And players less likely to take liberties if being short-handed is more likely to result in a goal against.

People are saying that this change would make the PK more difficult. Of course it would. The way it is NOW, it's a rule exception that makes the POWERPLAY more difficult. The man-advantage. The team that did not commit the infraction.

What I was trying to say is players/coaches will still have the same focus on the PK. I'm thinking at the pro level, but my guess is coaches will think the same at lower levels. They will still want rotation of players, which to me means you still won't see teams on the PK hold on to the puck to create the skill development the articles states they are trying to achieve. Players will learn how to dump it without icing, similar to what we've seen since the no change on icing rule change.

I'm also more worried giving any more advantages to the PP team will just lead to more specialization of players and more trying to draw penalties.

 

[GloveSave1]

Barfs. Typical...

People won't be satisfied until we're looking at 10-8 games on a regular basis...

"Let's shrink the goalie pads too."

Love that goal scoring. The National Hockey Association.

They're not smart enough to mess with the formula.

 

[C77]

I don't agree with this rule change at both NHL and amateur levels.

The team on the PP should get punished if it can't keep possession.

Attempting to increase scoring on the PP in the NHL is just another way of masking the issue that it is way too difficult to score 5 on 5. Also, if you increase the PP% expect more embellishment.

Just cut down the goaltending equipment or make the net bigger.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Love it. This rule will age up with these players until it is at all levels.

Also- stop negating a penalty if a team scores before possession is attained by the infracting team.

Also- Don't end a penalty on a PP Goal for 2 minute penaltys

Seeing how the Bruins are always at the top of the standings for more penalized teams in the league, this would not be good on us.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

The NHL, making rules no one wants, never making rules everyone wants

I find it amusing you live under an illusion that a rule change can ever possibly be one that 100% of people want.

If your expectations for a person, an organization, a business, etc. are that unrealistic, you will forever be unhappy with the product.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I don't agree with this rule change at both NHL and amateur levels.

The team on the PP should get punished if it can't keep possession.

Attempting to increase scoring on the PP in the NHL is just another way of masking the issue that it is way too difficult to score 5 on 5. Also, if you increase the PP% expect more embellishment.

Just cut down the goaltending equipment or make the net bigger.

This is a really good point.

It's pretty easy to see that embellishment in international football/soccer is as high as it is due to the fact that the punishment is so overly severe.

 

[Bmessy]

IMO an icing shouldn't even be a faceoff. It should be a free possession for the other team. During 5v5 make the team without possession start at their goaline and the team with possesion can start at their blue line. The team with posession can skate all the want to set players in motion but can't cross the their blue line until the puck does. The team without possesion must stay at their goaline until the puck crosses the blue line. Almost like a kickoff in football. It would be chaotic with multiple players rushing the zone while the Defensive team tries to get back into position.

Same thing during a PP but the team with possession has to start at the opposing blue line in the zone.

 

[Concessionaire]

A more consequential powerplay also means officials would be less likely to make calls without confidence

While you make some good points, I have serious doubts about this one.