Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
cmw00

Icing and Short Handed

Recommended Posts

Actually I wouldn't be against a "no icing while short handed" rule in the NHL. I think it would be that much worse for teams on the PK. PPGs would rise I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. If icing wasn't allowed during a penalty kill, a power play would almost certainly result in a goal. Make the team on the power play earn a goal... don't hand it to them on a silver platter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely. If icing wasn't allowed during a penalty kill, a power play would almost certainly result in a goal. Make the team on the power play earn a goal... don't hand it to them on a silver platter.

I tend to agree with this. I understand the point of not wanting to reward teams for taking penalties, but IMO this would just make things too stacked in favor of the pp team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icing the puck while shorthanded is necessary because its the only way the killing team can get a breather. Just think of all the times we've had a crucial clear...that would have gone for icing. It would completely change the perspective of the game, and slow it down.....a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people would be less likely to take stupid penalties. It would increase flow of the game and when penalties are taken, the team really has to work to kill it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play hockey up here in Hartford. I belong to USA hockey. When a team is shorthanded you are allowed to ice the puck. In fact we incorporated many of the new rules the NHL have in place in regards to holding and clutching. The only thing that hasn't changed is the crease and the new goalie rules. But yes, icing IS allowed in a short handed situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a penalty shouldn't translate into a goal for the opposing team. It should translate into an advantage for the offended team to counter-balance whatever loss they may have suffered from the actual penalty. If you weren't allowed to ice the puck while short handed, you slow down the game. Everyone will be so much more afraid of taking penalties that you'd start to see tons more breakaways, less hits, less physicality, and to a degree you'd start to reward embellishment.

I think it's fine how it is in the NHL now. A good special teams club can hold the puck in the zone for the majority of 2 minutes. If a team can't keep the puck in deep while on a PP, then a PP isn't going to help them and the penalty didn't really hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But people would be less likely to take stupid penalties. It would increase flow of the game and when penalties are taken, the team really has to work to kill it off.

It wouldn't increase the flow of the game. It would stagnate it in the end of the team killing the penalty. Often times, icing is meant as a way to allow the penalized team to make a line change. Being a man or two down, makes a world of a difference on how fast a line becomes drained. Penalizing a team is one thing, but potentially forcing 3-4 players to kill a full 2 min penalty (because they can't skate it out of their end) is just illogical.

You might argue that Shorthanded goals are proof that penalized teams can still show offense. This is not as clear as it seems. Next time you see a 2 on 1 break for a penalized team, I gaurantee you the player with the puck will shoot it instead of pass. 90% of the time a player in this situation won't risk passing the puck, because a pass would commit two players to shot and potentially cause a 4 on 2 the opposite direction.

Icing isn't rewarding the penalized team, it's the only hope they have of fighting off the penalty.

Basically, if you prevented the penalized team from icing the puck on the PK, you're destroying the defensive aspect of the game. It'd be like removing the "touchback" from the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But people would be less likely to take stupid penalties. It would increase flow of the game and when penalties are taken, the team really has to work to kill it off.

It wouldn't increase the flow of the game. It would stagnate it in the end of the team killing the penalty. Often times, icing is meant as a way to allow the penalized team to make a line change. Being a man or two down, makes a world of a difference on how fast a line becomes drained. Penalizing a team is one thing, but potentially forcing 3-4 players to kill a full 2 min penalty (because they can't skate it out of their end) is just illogical.

You might argue that Shorthanded goals are proof that penalized teams can still show offense. This is not as clear as it seems. Next time you see a 2 on 1 break for a penalized team, I gaurantee you the player with the puck will shoot it instead of pass. 90% of the time a player in this situation won't risk passing the puck, because a pass would commit two players to shot and potentially cause a 4 on 2 the opposite direction.

Icing isn't rewarding the penalized team, it's the only hope they have of fighting off the penalty.

Basically, if you prevented the penalized team from icing the puck on the PK, you're destroying the defensive aspect of the game. It'd be like removing the "touchback" from the NFL.

Very well put, Hoyle.

The NHL has it right currently, IMHO. The PK team needs to have a way to clear the puck, or you might as well almost start rewarding a goal for a penalty instead of a PP. Lower levels of hockey maybe it wouldn't show as much, but in the NHL that would be a death warrant for a penalty.

Which maybe you could argue that penalties aren't stiff enough at times, but also think of some of the bonehead calls you see by the refs. Not to put down the refs, but the thing is they do and always will happen. So at least give teams a chance to kill off a penalty to make the game interesting and let them redeem themselves or nullify a bad call. We fans get pretty pissed at some of the calls as is, even when they are justified. Think of how we'd be if this was a rule included with a PP.

Just think of what a 5-on-3 would be like if you couldn't clear the puck without being called for icing, too. Or a 5 minute or 4 minute double minor penalty that a PK unit had almost zero chance of getting a line change in.

PP's would end up being very sloppy with this rule in effect, too. Why move around the puck when you can just take shot after shot at the goal? If the PK team even can get hold of it they wouldn't be able to dump the puck, so chances are the man-up team could get it back inside the offensive zone or at worst the neutral zone and just go take more shots. Goalie makes save, FO in the SH zone. PK team ices, FO in the SH zone. No line changes for either team, no real skill necessary, no movement, no strategy. Just the PP team whacking at the puck hoping one will make its way in. A PK team killing that wouldn't take skill, it would take a whole lot of blocked shots and a miracle.

I prefer to watch teams have to maneuver on the PP, work the puck around and look for chances to earn a goal, rather than having that kind of mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I play hockey up here in Hartford. I belong to USA hockey. When a team is shorthanded you are allowed to ice the puck. In fact we incorporated many of the new rules the NHL have in place in regards to holding and clutching. The only thing that hasn't changed is the crease and the new goalie rules. But yes, icing IS allowed in a short handed situation

Maybe it wasn't Hockey USA but a inter branch rule. I could be wrong as I don't know how Hockey USA operates. Just going on what I heard. Doesn't really matter anyways, I'm enjoying the well thoughtout discussion going on here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what level of hockey you're referring to as well. Professional, College, Juniors and most older rep hockey leagues utilize power plays properly by slowing the play down and setting up the standard box in the other teams zone. In most recreational hockey leagues teams don't really know how to strategize a power play properly, so they tend to look like nothing more then a simpl 5 on 4 scrimage. In leagues like this you can get away with eliminating the free icing rule. But I see this more as...rewarding the PP team for their incompetence of knowing how to run a real power play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah man,

I totally agree with you.

When the team is being penalized,

it's like basically giving them a life line.

If you're not allowed to ice the puck when its even strength,

why should you be allowed when you're supposed to be penalized.

If they take out that rule,

we may see a whole different type of penalty.

Maybe one that is geared more towards positioning.

I think it would be better for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YIf they take out that rule,

we may see a whole different type of penalty.

Maybe one that is geared more towards positioning.

I think it would be better for the game.

The powere play is already geared towards positioning....Have you ever heard of "The box + 1"...It's a popular PP positioning strategy the Senators like to use.

I don't think some of you are thoroughly thinking this through. They're already not aloud to clear the puck over the glass and technically you're not even aloud to change lines on a icing call by the referee. Preventing a team from clearing the puck on a penalty kill is too much. SOG would skyrocket and it would literally ruin SV% and GAA statistics for goalies.

At first i was willing to humour this idea, but now I'm going to be plain serious. It's a ridiculous thought...even worse then the pathetic "fox puck"....I'm sorry if that offends anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fox puck, almost forgot about that. Lol.....that was stupid, all I watched was the trail of the puck. Anyway, you must allow icing on a penalty kill. You would have had to play to fully understand how tired the team killing the penalty gets. Even in an old man league like mine, some tems are able to set up the box and not being able to ice would surely mean a goal. Especially in the NHL, the goalies have a hard enough time already.

picture10.jpgpic14.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can't see calling icing on that.

They're already a man short, and tired players do dumb things.

Would lead to more goals, sure, which I don't like to begin with, but it might also lead to more injuries.

Let the shorthanded team ice the puck. They should only have to be a man down to the other team, not to the officials as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I can't see calling icing on that.

They're already a man short, and tired players do dumb things.

Would lead to more goals, sure, which I don't like to begin with, but it might also lead to more injuries.

Let the shorthanded team ice the puck. They should only have to be a man down to the other team, not to the officials as well.

That's exactly what I am talking about!

But seriously though.

You're not allowed to shoot the puck over the glass even strength too,

so I don't' see where the poster was going with that.

I don't know if you're seeing the whole situation.

When you're even strength,

you're not allowed to ice the puck,

right?

But when you're a man shot,

you're allowed to.

Why?

I don't really see the point in that,

while you are taking a man away,

you are giving them a chance to ice the puck.

So literally,

you are almost canceling the power play out.

The whole point of the power play is for the team with an advantage to have a better chance to score,

and they would technically be getting that with the disadvantaged team not allowed to ice the puck.

I'll say it again,

why should the team that is supposed to be disadvantaged,

do something they wouldn't be able to do when you're at even strength?

What exactly is the disadvantage of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you're the one who is not looking at the big picture leaf_fan.

Allow me to explain it in a language you might understand better.

Last year the Toronto Maple Leafs had the 24th worst PK in the league. If teams were no longer aloud to ice the puck when killing a penalty....the Leafs would not only have missed the playoffs last year, they would have placed Dead Last in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you're the one who is not looking at the big picture leaf_fan.

Allow me to explain it in a language you might understand better.

Last year the Toronto Maple Leafs had the 24th worst PK in the league. If teams were no longer aloud to ice the puck when killing a penalty....the Leafs would not only have missed the playoffs last year, they would have placed Dead Last in the league.

You're assuming that my NHL world revolves around the Leafs,

when it doesn't.

In fact,

I don't even care if a rule screws over the Leafs.

I really couldn't care less.

If the PK is actually fair,

then I like it.

Right now,

I don't think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the PK is actually fair,

then I like it.

Right now,

I don't think it is.

Then you really lack knowledge about the game.

The rules are the way they are because it's fair already. You're not rewarding a team by allowing them to ice the puck when killing a penalty! I can't stress this enough, you're still looking at this idea as if it's just black and white. If the defending team keeps dumping the puck down the ice during a penalty it's not because they've been rewarded, it's because the other teams power play unit SUCKS! Teams are aloud to ice the puck on a PK because without it, there would be NO defensive strategy for a penalty. Power plays would never leave the defending zone and PP% would rise to something like 75% (which is absurd). Players would be so afraid to be physical on the ice out of fear of drawing a penalty, that the NHL would turn into the biggest fairy sport on ice.

To borrow the words of Marty Brodeur "If you change the rules that drastically, it won't even be called hockey anymore"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the PK is actually fair,

then I like it.

Right now,

I don't think it is.

Then you really lack knowledge about the game.

The rules are the way they are because it's fair already. You're not rewarding a team by allowing them to ice the puck when killing a penalty! I can't stress this enough, you're still looking at this idea as if it's just black and white. If the defending team keeps dumping the puck down the ice during a penalty it's not because they've been rewarded, it's because the other teams power play unit SUCKS! Teams are aloud to ice the puck on a PK because without it, there would be NO defensive strategy for a penalty. Power plays would never leave the defending zone and PP% would rise to something like 75% (which is absurd). Players would be so afraid to be physical on the ice out of fear of drawing a penalty, that the NHL would turn into the biggest fairy sport on ice.

To borrow the words of Marty Brodeur "If you change the rules that drastically, it won't even be called hockey anymore"

I disagree.

They are being rewarded.

because they are getting to do something they wouldn't be able to do even strength.

Also,

about your comment on the Power play unit sucking.

I disagree on that too.

The Leafs have a pretty good power play unit.

But the New Jersey Penalty Kill was too good for them,

and it was more than just dumping it down.

I bet if there was in fact a rule where they couldn't ice it,

the Devils power play unit would be able to get it to the red line with ease.

I'm pretty sure if they do in fact enforce that rule,

which I doubt they will,

it would once again change the style of game for the special teams,

more particularly the PK units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the PK is actually fair,

then I like it.

Right now,

I don't think it is.

Then you really lack knowledge about the game.

The rules are the way they are because it's fair already. You're not rewarding a team by allowing them to ice the puck when killing a penalty! I can't stress this enough, you're still looking at this idea as if it's just black and white. If the defending team keeps dumping the puck down the ice during a penalty it's not because they've been rewarded, it's because the other teams power play unit SUCKS! Teams are aloud to ice the puck on a PK because without it, there would be NO defensive strategy for a penalty. Power plays would never leave the defending zone and PP% would rise to something like 75% (which is absurd). Players would be so afraid to be physical on the ice out of fear of drawing a penalty, that the NHL would turn into the biggest fairy sport on ice.

To borrow the words of Marty Brodeur "If you change the rules that drastically, it won't even be called hockey anymore"

I disagree.

They are being rewarded.

because they are getting to do something they wouldn't be able to do even strength.

Also,

about your comment on the Power play unit sucking.

I disagree on that too.

The Leafs have a pretty good power play unit.

But the New Jersey Penalty Kill was too good for them,

and it was more than just dumping it down.

I bet if there was in fact a rule where they couldn't ice it,

the Devils power play unit would be able to get it to the red line with ease.

I'm pretty sure if they do in fact enforce that rule,

which I doubt they will,

it would once again change the style of game for the special teams,

more particularly the PK units.

Is there a reason you are typing like that? Please type normally so that its in standard paragraph form so that its easy on the eyes and doesn't take up a tonne of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.

They are being rewarded.

because they are getting to do something they wouldn't be able to do even strength.

Also,

about your comment on the Power play unit sucking.

I disagree on that too.

The Leafs have a pretty good power play unit.

But the New Jersey Penalty Kill was too good for them,

and it was more than just dumping it down.

I bet if there was in fact a rule where they couldn't ice it,

the Devils power play unit would be able to get it to the red line with ease.

I'm pretty sure if they do in fact enforce that rule,

which I doubt they will,

it would once again change the style of game for the special teams,

more particularly the PK units.

Using Toronto as an example does not justify your argument. Last year (despite missing the playoffs) Toronto had the 2nd highest PP%. This year, they're 9th so far. So I'm sure the league doesn't really care about the Leafs' power play chances. It doesn't sound like you're actually thinking this one through, it sounds like you're more bitter about Toronto's saturday night loss to the Devils then anything else. Boohoo!

Did you know that in the 50s a player had to serve his full 2 mins regardless of how many powerplay goals the other team scored? The league quickly changed the rules so that the first goal would negate the remainder of the penalty. Is this not rewarding the penalized team as well? Why cut their penalty short because the other team scored? Their reasons were simple "too many goals were being scored on the power play", esp by Maurice Richard and the Montreal Canadiens.

And how can you be so sure the Devil's power play unit would get the puck to the redline with ease? If they did, they'd have the most short hand goals in the league. You really need to stop seeing this icing rule as rewarding the penalized team, because it's not. Even strength hockey is not the same as 5 on 4 hockey, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand?

In order to convince me, maybe you should try explaining to me what the general defensive strategy would look like on the PK without the icing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...