Should icing be applied to power-plays as well? | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Should icing be applied to power-plays as well?

  • Thread starter Thread starter State Of Hockey 8*
  • Start date Start date
What would be the purpose of this, exactly? Why "fix" what isn't broken? :dunno:
 
Okay...so people are complaining and saying it would slow down the game too much...so how about THIS?

Okay so they change a couple things around.

1st.) On a PK, the icing line is moved back to the defending team's blue line. So they can ice the puck as long as they get past their blue line first.
2nd.) If a team DOES ice the puck from inside their defensive zone, they are unable to change players on the fly until the offensive team brings the puck back into the neutral zone.

So it will pretty much be the same as it is now except that teams can't change lines if they ice the puck from their defensive zone.

Edit 3/8/16: Changed my mind.
 
Last edited:
Beer league icings for power plays is my suggestion, team has to get it past there blue line to safely ice it
Edit: ^ guy above explains it better
 
Well the rule has been around since 1937 and the sole reason to allow the pk to ice is "but we can’t tax players beyond their physical limits, nor make the game too strenuous for comparatively small squads". Is it still too physically demanding?
I don't think it's the worst idea to change that aspect of the rule. Time usually gets killed anyway by a defenceman waiting behind his net for the pp units to change anyway.
 
Yes, icing should be implemented for special teams. It's a simple change that doesn't cost a penny (like re-sizing nets or goaltender equipment) and could very well increase scoring immensely. It sucks knowing that as soon as a defender gains any sort of control over the puck it'll be fired 200ft down the ice.

They could even implement a modified icing whereas a player must carry the puck over his own blue line before dumping the puck.
 
westc2 said:
Okay...so people are complaining and saying it would slow down the game too much...so how about THIS?

Okay so they change a couple things around.

1st.) On a PK, the icing line is moved back to the defending team's blue line. So they can ice the puck as long as they get past their blue line first.
2nd.) If a team DOES ice the puck from inside their defensive zone, they are unable to change players on the fly until the offensive team brings the puck back into the neutral zone.

So it will pretty much be the same as it is now except that teams can't change lines if they ice the puck from their defensive zone.
Click to expand...

This is an issue that doesn't require addressing. Having the PK be able to ice the puck is not a problem.
 
Desperation clearances late in a PK are one of the best things in hockey. I feel like icings would heavily reduce some of that.
 
It's fine the way it is but if some kind of a change would have to be made, I'd suggest that for every icing you make when you are shorthanded it adds 10 seconds or so for the opponent's powerplay-time.
 
2 minute powerplays are already way too much of a penalty for more than half the calls . two minutes of free shots is way too much for tic tac stuff , its why i believe there should be a 1 minute penalty option for junk like meaningless over the glass pucks / too many men / meager interference/etc . the 2 minute calls are reserved for hooking / slashing a guy off a scoring chance or heavy duty cross chex etc .

calling icing on a penalized team would make the 2 minute tic tac calls even worse . i want games decided 5on5 as 5on4 aint even hockey , the less special team minutes the better

increase 5 on 5 scoring via larger nets n rinks plus smaller goaler pads to make games more exciting , pp goals to up scoring do not make games more exciting despite what twerpman thinks ! all pp goals created by tiic tac calls do is cause more fans to say f this we lost because of a tic tac call !
 
I can somewhat get behind the icing with a change allowed, otherwise I would start to have some safety concerns. However, my biggest issue with this frequently proposed change continues to be how penalties in the 2nd period will be worth even more than they are today.
 
I think if they called icing on the pk but still allowed the pk to change players. You would see something that you don't see anymore. Before they came up with the rule that you could not change players if you iced the puck. There would be times the goalie would come out and play the puck, especially if his team had momentum, but now they pretty much allow the icing to keep those tired players on the ice.
 
If theres one thing the NHL doesn't have enough of it's certainly not icings.

I'd be on board if they totally abolish the red line and made it legal to dump it from wherever in the neutral zone. If teams are primarily going to dump to change lines then what difference does 15 ft make. Games are slow enough already with all the icing and offside calls.
 
I think its a great idea. its not like it would slow down the game THAT much, during many power plays there are only 1 or 2 icings, sometimes none at all. But with this rule, when there is then the tired defenders would have to stay on the ice, leading to more scoring chances and better represent the penalty, instead of changing the rules favor of the PK'ers the way it is now.
 
Icing exists so that teams are obligated to make some attempt at offense while winning. Generally no attempt at offense is going to be made while killing a penalty.

PP goals are generally more cheap than exciting, big no from me.
 
AvroArrow said:
I never understood why a team who takes a penalty was given an advantage in the first place. Hate how teams can just ice the puck with no consequence. You took a penalty, you're short a man and you should have to play like that. I would like to see short-handed teams get called for icing, it'll force them to actually play hockey rather than smack the puck as hard as you can. I'm sure there's arguments for both sides but i would like to see this idea at least given a shot during pre-season or something to see how it actually affects the game.
Click to expand...

I agree with you a 1000%, it doesn't make any sense to allow the penalized team to be allowed to ice the puck. Its not allowed 5 on 5 why should it be allowed just because your shorthanded? I agree they should test it during pre-season and changed that stupid rule.
 
I feel it's safe to assume that the majority of the posters who agree with the OPs (unsurprisingly) unoriginal premise have never played hockey at a competitive level of the sport, never having felt the cardiovascular burn of a full minute+ PK session when hemmed into your own zone.

Players already expend huge amounts of energy as a defender during a single penalty kill. Being unable to ice the puck and go for a change would translate to a situation where the entire team would be potentially at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, whether a goal was scored or not on the first powerplay. The initially penalized team will likely commit even more penalties due to tiredness/lack of effort from a single PK than the other non-penalized team.

Also, in that scenario, diving also becomes more likely in an effort to draw penalties, becoming an even bigger issue than it is now, as well as with "make-up calls." Penalties are not handed out entirely fairly - human judgement (and error) is at play via referees. In truth, the entire premise fails to acknowledge the human element of the game AKA players and referee interference, in the idyllic but naive name of "punishing" the penalized team.

In the end, you'd either see games with very few penalties (and less intensity) as players tiptoe around each other, or total lopsided diving crapshoots where the referees lose control of the game.
 
Last edited:
Signature said:
I feel it's safe to assume that the majority of the posters who agree with the OPs (unsurprisingly) unoriginal premise have never played hockey at a competitive level of the sport, never having felt the cardiovascular burn of a full minute+ PK session when hemmed into your own zone.

Players already expend huge amounts of energy as a defender during a single penalty kill. Being unable to ice the puck and go for a change would translate to a situation where the entire team would be potentially at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, whether a goal was scored or not on the first powerplay. The initially penalized team will likely commit even more penalties due to tiredness/lack of effort from a single PK than the other non-penalized team.

Also, in that scenario, diving also becomes more likely in an effort to draw penalties, becoming an even bigger issue than it is now, as well as with "make-up calls." Penalties are not handed out entirely fairly - human judgement (and error) is at play via referees. In truth, the entire premise fails to acknowledge the human element of the game AKA players and referee interference, in the idyllic but naive name of "punishing" the penalized team.

In the end, you'd either see games with very few penalties (and less intensity) as players tiptoe around each other, or total lopsided diving crapshoots where the referees lose control of the game.
Click to expand...

It's not punishing a team, it's making the defense play hockey instead of whacking the puck. It's incentivizing teams/players/coaches to reduce the dangerous and non-hockey plays in the game. It's about improving scoring rates because the NHL is an entertainment product.
There's a bigger problem with cheapshots, obstruction, interference, etc. than there is with player fatigue. If they can survive the 3 on 3 gimmick with better players on the ice, they'll surely get by on the PK without icing.

Most teams carry depth PK specialists and everybody starts with a time out. Most of these consequences can be offset by coaching and roster adjustment. I don't think any rule change reduces intensity, maybe it's physical play that is a concern. As far as fatigue leading to more penalties, I'm not sure the numbers add up as much as perception does when it comes to play at the highest levels.

The diving issue has been partially addressed anyway and there are plenty of coaches that will bench diver if they they take themselves out of a play with that stuff anyway. I don't think diving would be any more of a concern than it already is.
 
hockeydoug said:
It's not punishing a team, it's making the defense play hockey instead of whacking the puck. It's incentivizing teams/players/coaches to reduce the dangerous and non-hockey plays in the game. It's about improving scoring rates because the NHL is an entertainment product.
There's a bigger problem with cheapshots, obstruction, interference, etc. than there is with player fatigue. If they can survive the 3 on 3 gimmick with better players on the ice, they'll surely get by on the PK without icing.

Most teams carry depth PK specialists and everybody starts with a time out. Most of these consequences can be offset by coaching and roster adjustment. I don't think any rule change reduces intensity, maybe it's physical play that is a concern. As far as fatigue leading to more penalties, I'm not sure the numbers add up as much as perception does when it comes to play at the highest levels.

The diving issue has been partially addressed anyway and there are plenty of coaches that will bench diver if they they take themselves out of a play with that stuff anyway. I don't think diving would be any more of a concern than it already is.
Click to expand...

The fact that the NHL is an entertainment product is a reason why icing is allowed on the PK. If you start calling icing on the PK, there will be whistles every time the defensive team clears the puck. They will take the icing whistles over the possibility of giving up a scoring opportunity via a turnover a large majority of the time.
 
westc2 said:
Okay...so people are complaining and saying it would slow down the game too much...so how about THIS?

Okay so they change a couple things around.

1st.) On a PK, the icing line is moved back to the defending team's blue line. So they can ice the puck as long as they get past their blue line first.
2nd.) If a team DOES ice the puck from inside their defensive zone, they are unable to change players on the fly until the offensive team brings the puck back into the neutral zone.

So it will pretty much be the same as it is now except that teams can't change lines if they ice the puck from their defensive zone.

Edit 3/8/16: Changed my mind.
Click to expand...

No. You can't just move the line during penalties. And if you can't change players, you might as well call it an icing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom