Quantcast
News

College Hockey:
NCAA rules committee keeps status quo on overtime, face shields and discipline

No changes to overtime procedures, supplemental discipline or facial protection were made by the NCAA men’s and women’s ice hockey rules committee when they met Monday through Wednesday in Indianapolis.

Rules changes that were forwarded to the playing rules oversight panel included tweaks to established procedures.

“I would say that generally, we dissected our game and ultimately believe our current rules are serving us well,” Tom Anastos, chair of the rules committee and coach at Michigan State, said in a news release. “We continue to work to find ways to improve our game long term, but I would say we’re pleased with where we are right now.”

Changes to overtime, including extending the period beyond five minutes and using a four-on-four format employed by the NHL, didn’t receive much support from coaches.

The committee also declined to make any changes to disciplinary issues such as allowing referees to view video or eliminate automatic one-game suspensions for some disqualification penalties.

Conferences will continue to be responsible for supplemental discipline of their own players.

“I think the awareness that has been raised to this issue is important and significant,” Anastos said. “In meetings with conference commissioners, coaches and coordinators of officials, we believe it is best to continue to funnel reviews of this type as we are now.”

Moving away from full facial protection again was discussed, but the committee did not take action toward implementation of a three-quarters face shield.

“We are trying to be sure we help to collect data from any source that can be compared to NCAA data,” Anastos said. “The process has been challenging, but we will continue to work with leagues that use the shield so we can make an informed proposal if appropriate. We just don’t have enough information at this point.”

A women’s hockey breakout session led to a proposal for an experimental rule that would allow the puck to be played legally at any height.

According to the NCAA, these are the rule changes that will be forwarded to the playing rules oversight panel for its July 16 meeting:

Hand Pass by Faceoff Player – The players taking a faceoff are not allowed to use their hand to play the puck. A violation of this rule will result in a minor penalty, similar to the NHL rule.

Faceoff Procedure – The defending team’s faceoff player shall be required to put the stick down first. Previously, the attacking team was required to do so. Center ice faceoffs will continue to require the visiting team to put the stick down first.

Goal pegs – Ten-inch goal pegs that are anchored into the ice or floor must be in place at all NCAA levels by the 2016-17 season.

Faceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

Faceoff Location – High stick/hand pass: In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to offending team’s goal.

Video Replay – Several changes were made to the criteria and process:

• It is reviewable to determine if a goal was scored before a penalty occurred.

• If an offsides or too many men on the ice penalty is missed and a goal is scored, it is reviewable until the puck leaves the offensive zone. This replaces the previous wording that only allowed the review to occur if the missed play directly led to a goal.

• It was clarified that video review may be used without the restriction of games that are being broadcast on television.

Penalty Shot/Shootout – During a shootout or penalty shot, if the goal becomes dislodged by the goalkeeper, the referee shall either award a goal (if intentional or if the goal was obvious and imminent) or allow the team to shoot again.

Penalty Shot – If a player that is awarded a penalty shot is injured and unable to take the shot, one of the players on the ice at the time of the infraction shall be chosen to shoot.

Look-Up Line – The committee approved the use of a warning-track style line intended to positively impact safety near the boards. The use of this line will not be mandatory, but is permissible.


The following is a self-policing forum for discussing views on this story. Comments that are derogatory, make personal attacks, are abusive, or contain profanity or racism will be removed at our discretion. USCHO.com is not responsible for comments posted by users. Please report any inappropriate or offensive comments by clicking the “Flag” link next to that comment in order to alert the moderator.

Please also keep “woofing,” taunting, and otherwise unsportsmanlike behavior to a minimum. Your posts will more than likely be deleted, and worse yet, you reflect badly on yourself, your favorite team and your conference.

  • A Shot and a Goal

    I’m glad to see that the proposal to issue a minor penalty to a player leaving his feet to block a shot gained no support. It takes timing, courage and good defensive positioning to be effective in blocking shots. When these skills are used in conjunction with each other there is no rationale for issuing a penalty.

  • Joe LaCour

    Look up (or properly the look down line as its the only way you’ll see it) is a mistake.

    • Sioux2You

      It’s not mandatory.

    • ChuckGandCrew

      I agree, head up around the boards. The looking down aspect to this line actually makes it more dangerous. I hope only BU will implement it.

    • bronxbomberz41

      Well, you can probably still see it if you’re looking “up.” they only way you don’t see it is if you look up at the ceiling. If you look straight ahead, you can the floor out in front of you.

      I don’t know how effective it will be though. The thing with a warning track in baseball is, its a different surface so you should start to notice a change underneath you. The look up line doesn’t have that benefit. I don’t even know if the warning track prevents many injuries because guys still slam into the wall.

BNY Mellon Wealth Management