Calhockey.com
Hockey Discussions => Peewee Hockey => Topic started by: 6607 on June 14, 2017, 06:52:47 PM
-
Apparently clearing the puck on the PK will be ruled icing in 14U and under. Thoughts on why this change was implemented and what effect it will have? Seems to me games just got longer, some players will start to see a lot less time on the ice, and players may tighten up because they are more afraid to take a penalty (to clarify, I mean on even strength).
-
Well it's icing, not a penalty, so I imagine the strategy of clearing the puck on PK won't change. Coaches will still be able to change lines unlike the NHL where players stay on the ice. You are right though, this definitely means more whistles and longer games.
-
I'm not a fan of the rule, it will result in longer games and more goals each way. This rule will make it more important to specialize on the PP and PK. At the 12 and under and 10 and under levels this is a detriment to development.
If USA Hockey wants to make a rule change, they should allow a touch up at the blue line for 12 and under and not an immediate whistle and offside.
-
Yeah, not sure the logic...this doesnt make much sense, especially the younger you go. Kids are still learning how to play and how to avoid penalties. This rule change seems to impact the kids who are over aggressive / penalty prone the most...they just became a bigger liability if its harder to kill penalties.
-
In another reactionary move, they also want to increase scoring by defensemen, so they are instituting a 3 point line similar to basketball...
-
Head scratcher for sure. Quikc researc shows that it was tried out in states like Mass. to mix results. Supposedly the objective is to have the players get more creative and make plays rather than dumping the puck. Not sure I'm buying this.
-
If they want to discourage dumping the puck, they should follow the icing rule of NHL. Players are not allowed to change after icing at equal strength. You either learn to break out or get scored on. :)
I could be wrong, but icing while PK is important for keeping the balance between offense and defense.
-
So what happens during a 5-on3 after a long kill, your team finally gets the puck deep in your zone but you're dead tired...
-
You ice it. The refs blow the whistle and you change lines and start back in the defensive zone. It will just make for a longer game now and the clock will stop more to reset. I don't get it. Is this rule for all 14 and under including AA and AAA?
-
The only thing I can think of is injury and concussions. When short handed you get to ice it and chase it, and maybe you have two tired kids going into the corner? This stops play, and gives line changes a chance to happen.
But the flip side of that is shorthanded teams will not want to ice.. making them more tired, and more prone to injury?
Its all i can think of.
Actually, it makes no sense. I give up :P
-
.. the objective is to have the players get more creative and make plays rather than dumping the puck.
From what I have heard this was their intent. Learn to value possession and moving the puck to a teammate rather than just dumping it. I appreciate the intent, but I do agree that it will certainly result in more whistles especially in the beginning.
-
The new non icing rule caused a lot of unnecessary delays of the game this weekend. Thoughts?
-
With the running clock, it was actually a great strategy to Ice the puck. Strategically, if I'm a coach I'm telling my players to Ice the puck anyways, especially at lower levels. If there's a chance for a counter attack, then take it, but Icing is giving up possession anyways.
Overall the rule is detrimental to development, because kids will no longer be learning how to advance the puck up the ice on a PP, nor will PK'ers be learning systems to prevent this. It's going to be constant resetting for face-offs, and given the dubious skating skills of many of our youth hockey refs, what used to be an exciting part of the game is now going to slow to a crawl.
The only benefit I see is for teams that develop kids with better than average face-off skills, and set plays that manage to get possession and keep it. I don't think we needed automatic icing to provide incentive for defenders to battle for puck possession. It seems that if there is a gimmick or weird rule change to experiment with, we apparently have to be first in line for it.
-
IMO, this rule change impedes the natural flow of the game.
-
There is a great audio discussion on this topic on MyHockeyRankings
http://www.myhockeyrankings.com/news.php?b=351
-
I can save you all some time and just tell you, they all think it's a dumb idea. ;)
-
I can save you all some time and just tell you, they all think it's a dumb idea. ;)
How about his suggestion of eliminating "dump and Chase"? I don't think it's the worst idea actually! I see why they did it, question is will USA Hockey follow Canada with the new checking rules! You will lose your mind then!!! Haha!!
-
USA hockey rejected the change at Bantam according to what they said.
I don't think they need to add a dump and chase penalty anyways.
This is one area where analytics and puck possession analysis at the NHL level has been helpful in showing to coaches that it's better to enter the zone with the puck on your stick than to dump it in, if you want to score goals.
Teams would rather not dump the puck in, but they start doing it in reaction to neutral zone trapping, back check pressure and defenseman standing up at the blue line. If there was a rule forcing you to carry it into the zone, imagine what starts happening when every defender knows that the opponent with the puck has to try and skate through a picket fence of bodies. Kids will get blown up at the blue line by other kids who can channel Scott Stevens and Nick Kronwall with impunity.
Dump and chase needs to be an option, just as throwing pucks to areas where your teammates can skate onto it, or even just chipping it off the boards to yourself needs to be an option. At some point, no matter what you're trying to do to develop skills, hockey stops being hockey if it diverts too far from the version that is played professionally.
-
Dump and Chase is a strategy just like any other play in hockey. If a line is not particularly strong on stick handling, but are good in the corners, its a great way to get the puck deep to set up a couple of scoring chances. It works, and all things considered, it helps the grittier lines generate scoring chances.
We need to stop taking away options from players. There seems to be a need to force results to "teams that look good on paper".
A good team should always beat a not so good team. So lets get some rules out there to make sure results are predictable. In short, take the game out of the game.
Dumb IMO
-
Agreed -- dumb, and whenever these things come up, they always ask experienced hockey players what they think, and they never agree. I keep wondering where these ideas come from and whether they consult any actual hockey experts?
I do understand the concern over concussions, which is a national concern that cuts across all contact sports. I understand ADM, which is based on research about how kids experience a sport at different ages. What I don't understand is how all these other changes keep creeping into the sport.