Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3041
Location: Your own blue line!
 |
 Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: No-touch? GMs say no |
 |
|
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=232516
| Quote: |
The NHL's 30 general managers were asked the following question: In the wake of Kurtis Foster's broken leg, are you in favor of no-touch icing? Yes or No?
Of the 26 GMs who responded, 17 said, No, they do not favor no-touch icing. Eight said, Yes, they would like to see a change to the current rule and go to no-touch. One said he simply can't make up his mind, that he used to be in the No camp but isn't so sure now.
Those results are not a surprise, really. Every year at the NHL GMs' meeting they beat this subject up and come to the same conclusion – the significant majority is not prepared to support a change to the icing rule, they like races for the puck and at the risk of being callous, they say they can't and won't be influenced by injuries because it's the nature of the game. In fact, at the most recent GMs' meeting in Naples, Fla., the GMs decided against even discussing the subject for at least another three years. |
No surprises here:
| Quote: |
But there was another snap poll conducted by TSN today. Random NHL players – some goalies, some defencemen, some forwards, young guys, veterans, a little bit of everything – were asked the exact same question and the results were significantly different. Mind you, getting 24 of 30 GMs is much more "scientific" if you will than grabbing a handful of players in a 700-player league.
Still, with 23 players checking in, 13 of them said they would favor going to no-touch icing. Ten said, No, to no-touch icing.
More or less opposite to the GMs' sentiments, although we don't need to be told these are hardly statistically valid exercises. |
Maybe they aren't statistically valid, but I've never seen any poll conducted with the players favoring touch icing.
An alternative being tested in the USHL, which had a positive response with some of the No crew:
| Quote: |
What is worth noting, though, is that a number of GMs and some players did on their own venture that there should be a compromise position on the touch vs. no-touch debate.
And there is, in the United States Hockey League. The USHL is a junior league based in the U.S. Midwest and it is the primary feeder of talent to U.S. college hockey.
A year ago, the USHL was going through much the same sort of debate on touch vs. no-touch and it looked as though it was heading to the no-touch decision.
But Scott Brand, the USHL's director of hockey operations and referee-in-chief, is not a fan of no-touch icing and decided to try to come up with an alternative that would address the injury concern but maintain some puck races.
"To be honest," Brand said, "I love touch icing. I am not a big fan of no-touch icing. So I was highly motivated to see if we couldn't come up with an alternative, some sort of compromise to keep everyone happy."
And that is precisely what he did.
This season the USHL introduced a hybrid form of no-touch icing. It works likes this:
On any potential icing, the linesman has to make a decision by the time the first player or players are crossing an imaginary line that runs across the rink and right through the end-zone faceoff dots and hash marks, or around 25 feet from the end boards.
If the defending player is the first to hit the dots or hash marks, the linesman immediately blows the whistle for automatic no-touch icing. The player does not have to even retrieve the puck.
If the defending player and the attacking player are in a dead heat or a little too close to call, the linesman blows the whistle for icing. The two players on a collision course can immediately let up for the automatic icing.
If, however, the attacking player has any degree of advantage on the defending player, the linesman doesn't blow the whistle and allows the puck chase and potential battle to continue. Linesmen are encouraged to use good judgment. In other words, if a defender is at the dot but totally flat-footed and the attacker is in full stride ready to blow by him, the defender shouldn't necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. Play on.
"We had a game (Wednesday) night and I'll bet there were eight or nine icings waved off because the attacking team was going to get their first," Brand said. "I like that. If the attacking team can get to a puck first, they deserve to get it, not have it whistled automatically as soon as it crosses the goalline. But I think we've cut down on the number of dangerous situations for the players and our referees have been instructed to throw out the players if they're going to take liberties on the (no-touch) icings."
Brand, along with USHL commissioner Gino Gasparini, aren't suggesting there haven't been growing pains with their new test rule. Especially early in the season, there was a fair amount of confusion, both with linesmen forced to make bang-bang judgment calls and the players, who were still feeling their way through the process. But Gasparini and Brand say as the season has progressed, so has the appreciation for the rule. And its execution.
USHL governors will vote in May on whether to make the hybrid icing rule a fixture in the league. Gasparini and Brand are relatively optimistic about it being approved to stay for the future.
"Honestly, I think it's eliminated a lot of the B.S. in our games," Gasparini said. "I think it's great."
A decent number of the 17 NHL GMs who said No to no-touch did suggest, without being asked, that they might be a lot more open to the USHL hybrid icing rule.
"It's certainly something we should be researching and taking a long, hard look at," said one NHL GM.
So it is fair to say that while NHL GMs currently are not in favor of going to no-touch, the vote on whether to at least consider a compromise option would be a lot closer to 50-50. Which, at the very least, suggests it's maybe not such a good idea to go three years without ever discussing the pros and cons and modifying existing icing rules in the NHL. |
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
 |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
