Unverified Voracity Has The Legal Limit Of Purple Top Hat

Submitted by Brian on May 12th, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Marvin in. There were some rumblings that incoming S recruit Marvin Robinson might have some academic issues after his plan to enroll early didn't come off. As seen on the board, these appear to have been false. Robinson just told Rivals he will be on campus June 1st($), whereupon he will try to take Jordan Kovacs's spot at bandit.

The More You Know, As Presented By Lil Wayne.

t-pain-lil-wayne-2

repeat after us: that's not my weed no matter how much my hat implies it is.

Notre Dame tight end Mike Ragone is the earthly avatar of New Jersey. Also he is a backup Notre Dame tight end, so he will get in minor trouble with recreational substances and get hellaciously disproportionate justice in return. The minor trouble with recreational substances:

The trooper making the stop smelled marijuana, searched the car and found two baggies of a leafy substance in the purse of Ragone’s girlfriend. A field test indicated it was marijuana.

According to probable cause affidavits filed by Trooper Tony LoMonaco, Ragone gave the baggies to his girlfriend to hide in her purse as they were being pulled over. LoMonaco said Ragone waived his right to remain silent and said the marijuana belonged to him.

Someone is not familiar with the concept of a weed carrier.

If precedent holds, Ragone is likely to be suspended for a year because the institution of Notre Dame has just finished watching Reefer Madness for the third time this week, finding nothing even mildly humorous therein. This would make him the third second-string Notre Dame tight end to feel ND's boot on his neck for typical student hijinks: Will Yeatman got booted in 2008 for moped DUI (seriously: moped DUI) and Joseph Fauria transferred to UCLA after he got suspended for something undisclosed; he dropped some bombs on the way out.

Q: Why is it always the backup tight end? Why can't it be the quarterback?

Colton, Cullen. Cullen, Colton. Rothstein has some more on Colton Christian, Michigan's newest basketball commitment. His role, as envisioned by Beilein, is Petway with a decent jumper:

Christian said Beilein told him his role as a freshman could be to guard an opponent’s forwards, rebound, box out and offensively play around the high post.

His high school coach (Bellvue, not Hargrave) provides some additional information that suggests things by omitting them:

“Really athletic,” O’Connor said. “6-foot-6, long. Fills the lanes really well, rebounds really well, can defend people on the interior and out on the perimeter. He can defend inside and out.”

Mention of offensive skills: nonexistent. Even so, if Christian can be a 6-6 all-purpose defensive stopper and rebounder that's something unique on the team. His addition seems worthwhile as long as it doesn't impact Michigan's ability to take two more players in the 2011 class (which already features Carlton Brundidge). This would require a transfer or Laval Lucas-Perry not getting a fifth year.

Define "fair." The welcome news that the NCAA hockey committee is seriously considering dumping the failed regionals format for home series was covered on Friday. It's a move that makes sense on multiple levels. One of them is that going to less random format than one-and-done hockey properly rewards teams that have suggested they are amongst the best in the country. This is an asset in a sport that's so much of a random number generator that this year's NHL playoffs saw exactly one team of each seed advance to the second round.

So this is a supremely annoying argument:

Going to a 16-team four-regional format in 2003 was a signature moment for the sport. It eliminated byes, and at the same time, portended the move away from on-campus regionals as much as possible, eliminating a sore spot and unfair advantage. …

In Brad Schlossman's Grand Forks Herald report, he noted that from 1988-91, top seeds — which had a bye AND a best-of-3 quarterfinal home series — reached the Frozen Four 87.5 percent of the time. After the NCAA went away from best-of-3 series, starting in 1992, until the tournament expanded to 16 teams, the No. 1 seeds — which had a first-round bye only — reached the Frozen Four 65.9 percent of the time. Since then, needing to play two games, like everyone else, and not getting to play them at home as often, it's only 46.9 percent of the time.

But why is that bad? The whole point was to remove the unfair advantage of the top seed. This is what so many people clamored for. This would seem like a step backwards.

Argh. It is only an "unfair advantage" if the top seeds had not, you know, earned them by virtue of their play. You might as well say it's unfair that Michigan gets all those recruits. Honestly, if a four seed has no chance of winning a best two-of-three series on the road against a good team it shouldn't be in the tournament at all. In the NHL, the road team wins 45% of the time. If you want to make it fairer, the "road" team can get last change and the various other small advantages given the home team in game two.

Hockey's just too random to make any determination about a team's strength relative to another in sixty minutes. Over the course of a whole season, however, teams certainly distance themselves from others. The current tournament format tries as hard as it can to discard all that information about who is the best team in favor of weighted plinko, which yields tournaments so chaotic that they render regular season results virtually meaningless. This is "fair" according to the above argument.

Moving to home best-of-three regionals is more profitable, more exciting, provides fans a better experience, creates a tournament that is less likely to be the functional equivalent of a blender, and makes the regular season more meaningful. Protests that the Pairwise system is not precise enough to distinguish between 8 and 9 (or 7 and 10 and maybe even 6 and 11) are accurate, which is why the committee should move to a PWR system that is less stupid. If changing the tournament forces the powers that be to consider the many ways in which the Pairwise is flawed, it's a double win.

Define "rules." Literally. Also in the realm of college hockey changes, the committee is meeting for their bi-annual review. There is the usual fretting about player safety that will result in some vague redefinition of things that are already penalties. Other than that, though, there are some meaningful changes being discussed:

  • Going to half-shields instead of full cages.
  • Reducing ties by modifying the overtime session without resorting to the shootout: "There seemed to be more interest in reducing the number of tie games. In other words, not finishing the game with a shootout, but maybe tweaking the overtime rules that we have in place so more games end in overtime.” The proposals on the table are a mishmash of lengthening overtime to ten minutes and playing OT 4-on-4.

    I think that's the right track. Shootouts are random and they're only acceptable in the CCHA because they don't count for the pairwise.

  • The CCHA is the only league against the two-ref, two-linesman system, so at least they know they're icing some confused mofos.
  • They're considering tweaking icing with weird  rules about imaginary lines (to reduce whistles) or eliminating the wave-off if an attacking player misses a pass (to increase whistles) or removing the ability of a shorthanded team to ice it on a power play. The first two are dumb, but the latter is interesting to me: I bet they added the icing exception way back in the day because tired teams on the penalty kill were just going to ice it anyway and it was a way to not have ten of them in a two-minute span. Now that they've removed the ability to change after an icing, teams on the PK would have to legitimately attempt to clear the zone.
  • It seems like they're going to get the d-zone dump over the boards right: "It looked like from the survey results that over half of the people would like to see something, but not a penalty. They’d like to make it so that they can’t change their players." This is right on. Make it icing, basically. Remove the incentive to do it without implementing the Dumbest Penalty In Sports.
  • ARGH ARGH ARGH: "Requiring a team that has a delayed penalty in effect to clear the puck out of its defensive zone to get the whistle instead of merely gaining possession. That’s another topic that didn’t garner much in the way of support." Guessing one Red Berenson brought this up—it's something I suggested after the Miami debacle. There is no reason not to implement this immediately.
  • They're also considering making all goals off skates legit, which they should do. Skate on ice: legit goal.

It sounds like at least a few of these will get implemented, and I like virtually all of them. (There is a goofy proposal to ban people from diving on the ice to block a shot, but there's no way that gets passed.)

Comments

03 Blue 07

May 12th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

I mean, I can admire him doing the right thing and admitting it was his, but crap- what about being pragmatic? Or shutting the fuck up when the cops question you? 

He should've given it to her and said, "please say it's yours," and if she balked, he should've said nothing at ALL and then it would turn into he said-she said, and maybe he can convince her to take the rap down the line. But, just from a "keeping your ass out of trouble" standpoint, he couldn't have handled it any worse. Then again, he probably wasn't thinking, ahem, clearly at the time.

WolvinLA2

May 12th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^

Yeah, he screwed that one up as much as he could have.  What's the point of hiding it in the girl's purse if you're just going to fess up to it?  At that point you might as well just throw it in the glove box or the console or something.  

And you're right, plan B is say nothing.  Play stupid.  It might not get you totally out of trouble, but then again it might.  

Bando Calrissian

May 12th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

I once heard Red give a five-minute explanation on why he favored eliminating the full cage, and it makes total sense.  His contention is that it causes players to play fearlessly, and to skate with their sticks up, which actually increases the likelihood of injury.  Good to see it's finally under consideration.

JustGoBlue

May 12th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

allowing icing on the PK.  Especially with no-touch, no-change icing.  I guess the argument is that you're being penalized, hence why you're on the PK, thus why should you be allowed an advantage you don't get when you didn't break the rules.  But you're already down 20% compared to the other team, which is a pretty significant amount.  Now you're going to have the same players killing the whole penalty, while penalty killing takes even more energy than playing normally and you're faced with icing it and being unable to change or it ending up staying in your zone, I think that's going to result in a significant increase in PP scoring.  Maybe when it's gameplanned for, instead of being able to ice it, there is less icing and not so much increased PP scoring, but I don't much like increased PP scoring.

One change Brian didn't mention is leaving the penalized player in the box for the full 2 minutes, regardless of a score.  I don't like that either.  The game was designed 5-on-5, it's meant to be played 5-on-5.  I don't like a lot of penalties, I don't like special teams deciding games, especially early on.  They always talk about how it's not the first couple penalties that kill the PKers, it's the 4th, 5th, 6th etc.  If you're going to take that many penalties, then you should have that "hidden" disadvantage, but I don't think we need to make the game more special team oriented.  I suppose it's all about us ADD Americans needing more scoring, but I just don't see the need for more scoring, I think it's fine the way it is and if it's not broken, don't fix it.

For what it's worth, I don't think these would disadvantage Michigan as much as some other teams, I just don't like the proposed PP changes so much. Change icing, fine, change the masks, fine, dumping over the boards, fine, off a skate, please dear Lord, yes, overtime, fine, delayed penalty, sure, reffing, if it's going to make things better.  But I don't think the PP rules need to be changed.  Get off my lawn?

zlionsfan

May 12th, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^

then tell the team to stop committing penalties. The game was designed to be played 5-on-5 by people who can follow rules like "a stick is not an axe" and "do not use opposing players' heads to test the boards' strength". There are already enough cheap players at every level who will do whatever they can to slow the other team down regardless of the short-term impact on their team and the long-term impact on the health of the other players. Anything that makes penalties easier to take will eventually increase the cheap behavior and thus increase the chances for certain schools to win games. (Hey, I didn't say Michigan State specifically.)

Not that I'm arguing for minor penalties to be served like major penalties, mind you. That's just my perspective on the issue of penalties in general. Also, it's extremely difficult to predict the impact of any penalty-related rule on the CCHA, given that no one can tell what exactly will be called on any given night.

JustGoBlue

May 12th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^

are always going to affect games.  And that's fine.  A bad penalty should cost you, multiple penalties should cost you.  It shouldn't be a guarantee on the PK.  A good team should need good speical teams. That being said, making it easier to score on special teams isn't necessary.  Making it easier to score on the PP and harder to complete a PK means more scoring, for both teams, on special teams and that means special teams move closer to that very fine line of deciding a game.  Especially with the variable reffing we're all accustomed to, I don't think we need to do anything to make PP scoring more likely... X_X

mdblue

May 12th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^

Re: touching the puck vs. clearing the puck in the Miami game, if the referee said he blew the whisle due to Reichard (Knapp? Was that Knapp I don't recall) having control of the puck and thus ending the play on the delayed penalty, he is a bald-faced liar. There needs no rule change there - the ref simply needs to not be a raging idiot.

OTOH - If the referee blew the whisle because he lost sight of the puck (due to the goaltender having it moslty covered), the whistle was the correct call.

In conclusion: no rule change, yes raging idiot change.

jcgary

May 12th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

I wonder why the CCHA is against the 2 refs & 2 linesmen system.  The refs can barely get into proper position as it is with 2 refs & 2 linesmen.  Just what I want more replays because one single ref is having trouble getting up and down the ice.

I wish I saw a possible rule change of getting rid of the "intention of blowing a whistle" and also on replay even if the whistle blew before the puck was going into the net that the goal could be good.  Kind of like the NFL's new continuation rule on fumbles.  I know there could be some gray area but Michigan would have been playing at Ford Field in the Frozen Four had a rule like this been in the books. 

Alton

May 12th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^

The CCHA needs a staff of about 16 refs right now with 2 refs & 2 linesmen.  If we went to 1 ref & 2 linesmen, they could fire the 8 worst refs in the league.  This would be a very, very good thing. 

The only problem, unfortunately, is that I question their ability to tell the good ones from the bad ones.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 12th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^

I agree with FoSho, I like that there's no such thing as icing on a PK.  I think scoring on the power play would go up a lot more than intended if they called icing.  Right now the average success rate of a power play is about one in five - that's a significant amount, really, and it's really more than that for a full two minutes - more like 30% - because the stats include all the crappy little 20-second power plays that happen over the course of a season.  A one in five chance of scoring in the next two minutes is a huge boost over your chances of scoring in a random 5-on-5 two-minute section of a game.

My guess is power play scoring could rise to as high as 50% if the PK team wasn't allowed to ice the puck, because any player attempting to carry the puck out of the zone could simply be swarmed and taken out of the play.  A better PP reform would be to not let the penalized player out of the box after a goal.

JeepinBen

May 12th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^

I disagree with your last point (but i like the first, as i said below)

I think that the 2 minute minors need to be released after a goal, because their minors. 5 minutes majors - those are different beasts, and you can score as many times as you want. Huge infraction? Huge advantage for the other team. Maybe they can adjust slightly (check from behind 2 and 10, the 2 is unreleasable?) but in general I think a goal is a lot worse than being on the PK. On a delayed call if the soon to be PP team scores, the penalty is eliminated, same idea. Ask any coach, he'd rather kill 2 minutes than give up a goal. 

JeepinBen

May 12th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

I don't like a few of them that are discussed up there.

PK teams should definitely be allowed to ice the puck -  its damn near the only way to kill penalties. "Teams on the PK would have to try to legitimately clear the zone" - ummm, breaking out 5 on 5 can be a crapshoot, 4 on 5 it would be near impossible to clear the zone, get the red line, dump it, then get a change. It's not like the non-icings waste much time anyway if you have a good PP, 10 seconds you're back in the zone.

Touch up for a penalty needs to be the rule, not clearing the zone. After the opposing goalie leaves the net for a delayed call, couldn't a player purposefully NOT clear the zone with the puck on his stick and shoot? 

I am a goalie though, so in general i'm not in favor of rules that are just MORE GOALZ! FANS LOVE GOALS! 

I would like to see the "over the boards in the d-zone" become like an icing, except for goaltenders it's a delay of game penalty. 

South Bend Wolverine

May 12th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^

"I am a goalie though, so in general i'm not in favor of rules that are just MORE GOALZ! FANS LOVE GOALS!"

I'm not a hockey player of any sort, but I grew up with a very Bo Schembechler attitude towards sports, and this has left me with a great appreciation for defense.  My favorite NHL player has been Nick Lidstrom for some years now, and I think watching him quietly making the Ovechkins & Crysbys of the world look like fools is just as beautiful as watching those guys score goals.

And seriously, look me in the eye and tell me that this play wouldn't bring you out of your seat:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egDz-5ikIRg

JeepinBen

May 12th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^

That's exactly what it is, a mindset. I've always been more drawn to defense than offense, as evident by my being a goalie. But yeah, being from Chicago, i feel like da bears have that defensive mindset... Most important position on the Bears? Middle linebacker - that's like being the ND QB, Dallas QB, Canadien goalie, etc. it IS the position that defines the team, and defense is just something i grew up with. 

ecormany

May 12th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^

the most damning thing about the supremely annoying argument is that it's based around the fact that it's a Good Thing that it's less than a coin flip proposition for one of the top four teams in the country to win two games in a row against inferior competition.  eesh.

unrelated, regarding icing during the PK: does anyone remember the exhibition game a few seasons ago (fall 2006 i think?) when they played with no icing on the PK?  i can't remember if it led to many goals, but it sure as hell pissed off the Yost crowd.  i hate to leverage the NCAA's strategy of "squeeze all the cash out of the poor children", but it seems that the real Good Thing in all of this is Don't Piss Off The Fans (And Keep The Players Safe). probably not in that order.

Tater

May 12th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

"Why can't it be the quarterback?"

Because the police would have made the pot "go away" or they would have blamed the girl if it was the QB.  And if they didn't, the coaches would have found a "reason" to give him a "second chance." 

ND seems to like and use the Saint Dantonio stategy of welcoming back those who can contribute and making examples of those who are second-string or worse.

Maize n Brew Dave

May 12th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

If the sumamries I've read are on target, only the off the skate goal and the over the boards d-man clear make sense.

The rest range from meh (cages/shields) to ridiculous. The idea that a team has to clear the zone on a delayed penalty is a pretty drastic change to a rule that isn't broken. The Miami goal wave-off was the result of a referee not doing his job rather than the rule. As stated above, if he legitimately lost site of the puck, he has to blow to the whistle. But changing the rule in response to a ref screwing that up is a bad idea. Likewise, the clear the zone proposal on a delayed penalty makes little sense. It would end up delaying the game more than speed it up and serves no clear purpose. Possession of the puck is, and has always been, logical. The offending team has possesion and by virute of possession a chance to advance the puck into an offensive posture, blowing the whistle stops that. For the team going on the PP, they have the opportunity to play 6-5 and capitalize until they surrender the puck. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Seth

May 12th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^

Going to half-shields instead of full cages.

Do it. As Red has stated before, the cages make the kids more reckless. Plus, the glass shields just simply look better. And it wouldn't be nearly as confusing when basketball is called "cagers."

Reducing ties by modifying the overtime session without resorting to the shootout

If we get ties, we whine about sister-sleeping. If it's shootouts, we whine about a skills competition determining wins and losses. If it's long overtime, we whine about players getting worn down into wet nubs. There's no perfect answer. Best system I've seen is 10 mins of 4 on 4, followed by changing to backup goalies, and having two 5-minute periods of 3-on-3, then two 5-min periods of 2-on-2, etc.

They're considering tweaking icing with weird  rules about imaginary lines

Huh? Why imaginary lines? Don't we already have non-imaginary lines?

Eliminating the wave-off if an attacking player misses a pass

I prefer the NCAA's way. I think this is just part of the gravitational pull of NHL rules that you don't have a really good reason for changing.

Removing the ability of a shorthanded team to ice it on a power play.

Remember in the late-'80s, early-'90s when "Tough on Crime" became a byword for anyone seeking public office? Remember when we later discovered we had tripled the rate at which we sent innocent people to jail? Before making a powerplay an almost certain goal, remember how many bad penalties are handed out. This would ultimately decrease the value of even-strength goals (next to so many PP goals). It will make the arbitrary penalization by referees on any given night the ultimate arbiter of games. Diving and drawing a call would be a 50-percent goal probability. No, no, a thousand times NO!

It seems like they're going to get the d-zone dump over the boards right:

Yay.

Requiring a team that has a delayed penalty in effect to clear the puck out of its defensive zone to get the whistle instead of merely gaining possession.

This is a really neat idea. It plays on the theme of icing being the universal friend of all penalty-killers. The Miami (NTM) game is a bad example: he never had possession and no whistle should have been blown under the current rules, and had its roots less in "the rule is hurting the game" and more in the category of "people who can't do their jobs." I wonder, what's the instant-answer "no" response to this sound like?

Above, Jeep in Ben wrote:

"Touch up for a penalty needs to be the rule, not clearing the zone. After the opposing goalie leaves the net for a delayed call, couldn't a player purposefully NOT clear the zone with the puck on his stick and shoot? "

That's not a concern. The moment the puck leaves the zone it's blown dead.

They're also considering making all goals off skates legit, which they should do. Skate on ice: legit goal.

Skates are good, skates are bad, I don't care: just pick one and stop all the confusion. I almost had a hernia after Game 3 of the Detroit/San Jose series, when video review overturned one skate goal and upheld another almost identical one. Had it been opposite teams who received those same rulings on those same goals, every hockey fan in the country (save those on the winning side) might have had apoplexy. Also: stroke, heart attack, nausea, vomiting...

ecormany

May 12th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^

Huh? Why imaginary lines? Don't we already have non-imaginary lines?

the proposed rule uses an imaginary line that runs through the two faceoff dots. not even kidding. no way a CCHA ref/linesman could rule on that consistently (from halfway down the ice). might as well say it's a judgement call, it'll stave off the whinging.

Seth

May 12th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

I think I came up with the retort, though it doesn't ruin the rule so much as provide some exemptions that would need to be written in:

When facing an upcoming penalty, teams facing a penalty might be induced to a "hide the puck" as my coach called it, i.e. jam it against the boards, lock in your skates, etc., in certain circumstances when it would be beneficial to delay the onset of the penalty. Those are:

  1. End of a game that you are not losing. If there's less than 2 minutes, and the other team is going to a powerplay, you want to minimize their powerplay time.
  2. During a powerplay. This would absolutely need to be an exception. If you're about to go into a 5-on-3, you want to delay that as long as possible, since 'tis better to have back-to-back 5-on-4s.
  3. End of a period. A period break in a penalty kill increases your chances of killing it off.

kevin holt

May 14th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^

 

I am all for changing the rule, because refs (especially in the tournament, I saw it in every game I watched) decide some games that they are going to try to give power play teams as much time as they can get, by blowing the whistle IMMEDIATELY upon touching the puck.

This seems like a noble thing, and would avoid any coach yelling at a ref for losing .5 seconds of a power play or something. However, I saw a ref (at the Ft. Wayne regional) blow the whistle BEFORE a player even touched the puck. He blew it when the stick was obviously going to touch it, and no other player was around, but the stick was still about 4 inches from coming in contact. It was at that point that I realized, hey, looks like they're blowing it early on purpose.

That being said, the Miami debacle resulted because the refs decided that if the puck is grazed by a player, it is immediately whistled dead. Now, their thought that this would help power play teams backfired, and actually helped a team who had gotten a penalty, which should NEVER happen. In fact, it helped them so much, they won the game DIRECTLY because of it.

Now, this means the rule needs to be changed, because referees are stupid. The rule is written fine, because possession is basically the same as clearing the zone. However, the refs interpret the rule wrongly, and it results in this bull shit. Having the puck bounce off your pad is NOT possession. If anyone here knows lacrosse (or even if not), that's the equivalent of disallowing a goal because the other team had a flag down (penalty) and a player takes a bounce shot that scores. [The rule is that if the ball is dropped and touches the ground, the whistle blows and the penalty is assessed. However, there is the exception of bouncing a shot, which would otherwise obviously help the penalty team tremendously, because a goal would be avoided simply because the ball hit the ground on purpose.]

So if the officials follow the rule correctly, there is no problem and no need for rewrite. Also, the rewrite would need the changes because of the reasons you said, where a team would delay on purpose. There are a few options:

1) Make it "clear the zone" with exceptions, such as trapping the puck or stalling, which would result in a whistle.

2) Make it possession by a player other than the goalie, or some variation where the puck must be obviously in possession of the goalie, rather than just the refs losing sight of it. This could somehow be the rule as it stands now, only with exceptions when the puck is in the middle of the ice or if the opposing team currently has a 'scoring chance.' Since they count scoring chances in the stats separate from shots, this could feasibly enter the spectrum of officiating, but it would most certainly result in some angering situations, likely against us again (tin foil hat time).

3) Make it "clear the zone" with a SECOND penalty assessed for delay of game if the team clearly tries to stall or retain/trap the puck in their zone. (My favorite, but it still holds the problem of the goalie. Imagine a goalie making a save and freezing the puck, only to realize that he must clear the zone. He can't just throw the puck in the corner, especially if there are 2 opposing players breathing down his throat. If he keeps freezing the puck, is that a delay of game penalty as stated in the rule? Shifting possession from the goalie to a player is dangerous even when there aren't 6 opposing players in the zone.)

4) Make it "clear the zone" where the power play team may indicate to the referee if they desire the penalty to begin. For example, if a team is covering or trapping the puck, the coach or a player could signal (as in a time out). This is pretty undesirable, but if there were a way to implement this, it would solve the problems. Since there are 2 referees, one could stand near the bench (or at least outside the zone) in position to blow the whistle when the coach indicates.

 

Now, obviously, the rule would have to imply that the whistle is blown as soon as the puck clears the blue line. There's no way a team would have a chance to score on an empty net because of this. That's just ludicrous, but I guess it could be written that way by some buffoons if they didn't consider the matter.

JeepinBen

May 12th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^

But i don't like the change. I don't think it's a bad rule as is, i think it was a bad call by the ref in the Miami game. 

 

And for the record, its "Jeepin Ben", .. as in a verb, as in I go off-road in a jeep (see avatar)...

/not trying to seem like an ass, just pointing it out

Seth

May 12th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^

That seems to make a lot more sense than a Jeep being in a Ben.

Then again, using a handle to promote a brand is not nearly as cool as the concept of a large vehicle inside a human being. I'm sorry, but you are forever "Jeep in Ben" to me, though I kind of think "Delorean in Ben" would have been even cooler.

South Bend Wolverine

May 12th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^

I agree with most of what you said, but this here, seriously?

"Best system I've seen is 10 mins of 4 on 4, followed by changing to backup goalies, and having two 5-minute periods of 3-on-3, then two 5-min periods of 2-on-2, etc."

There are so many problems with this.  First, many teams have two legit starting goalies.  Also, teams often play their "backup" goalie b/c their best goalie needs a break, had a bad game last time, got pulled earlier in the game, etc.  Also, who in the hell wants to watch 2 on 2 hockey?

I've heard this proposal made before, and frankly, I find it ridiculous.  The day I'm sitting in Yost watching people play 2-on-2, video game hockey is the day I will be simply unable to take the game seriously.  Honestly, I don't get why people are so against ties.  Yeah, it's not ideal, but in the regular season, if you play 65 minutes, 70 minutes, whatever, and can't decide a winner, then ok, fine!  The shootout is marginally ok, mostly because it's dramatic and exciting.  2-on-2 hockey is not exciting, it's a joke.

Seth

May 13th, 2010 at 7:31 AM ^

Fair enough.

This system is actually implemented in Bantam hockey if you ever want to see it in action. I know a bunch of 9-year-olds chasing the puck and beat on each other  isn't exactly CCHA hockey (Michigan State excluded) but it does seem to work.

For the sake of argument, if ties are absolutely out, what would you recommend? I agree that 2-on-2 hockey isn't ideal, but compared to a shootout, at least it's the game of hockey.

kevin holt

May 14th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

There's just no way I can endorse a few of those ideas. You can't just make teams play certain people, in any sport. If it was baseball and the game went to an 11th inning, you wouldn't be able to tell each team to put their weaker pitcher in. However, a shootout is kind of like having a home run derby decide the game, so I agree that there needs to be a change if we are to be satisfied.

But what happens after 2-v-2? You said etc. Does that turn into 1-on-1? Then what? 0-on-0? goalie showdown? That's pretty ridiculous. Even 3-on-3 is too "pond hockey" for me. If there needs to be extra periods, just keep it at 5-on-5 or 4-on-4. If you change after the first period of OT, maybe just go 5 then 4, but no more after that. No goalie changes, no fewer players. This isn't hockey camp, we can't have those kinds of rules. I disagree when you say that 2-on-2 is "at least still hockey."

big gay heart

May 12th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

Disagree on a rule change that would force the puck to be cleared from the zone for a delayed penalty. There's no realistic impetus for it; delayed penalties are meant to be small amounts of "bonus" time. There's no clear rationale for forcing a team to clear the zone. The removal of 20% of a team's participants for 10% of the period seems like reward enough, especially given the erratic calls made by college hockey officials.

Hockey is quickly devolving into a special team's sports and I think that's a shame. It's meant to be played 5-on-5.

WolvinLA2

May 12th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

Yes, but the point of a delayed penalty is that a penalty should never help the team committing it.  If you wait until the zone is cleared to call it, you'll never have that problem.  Same reason most penalties don't call the play dead in football, if the result of the play is better than the penalty, allow that to happen.

kevin holt

May 14th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^

as I state in an unnecessarily long comment below, it's glaringly necessary to make some changes, as refs interpret rules on their own and make stupid calls.

However, there are some problems with simply making them clear the zone, and there have to be some other changes.

I think the better rule change would honestly involve some sort of review of close goals, or some kind of oversight of officials. If there was a way to review the no-goal in the Miami Incident, and count it as a goal seeing as the whistle had no bearing on the play and was almost simultaneous to the puck entering the goal, that would be much better. Quick whistles are one thing, but when the ref loses sight of it and it's buried as he is blowing the whistle, when the goalie is still trying for it and it has no effect on the play, it should count.

Seth

May 14th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^

Holt makes an excellent point.

With replay available, there's no need for an "intent to blow" at all. The refs' job is to blow the whistle when the play is dead. Any and all action taken by players after the whistle blows cannot result in a goal.

The whistle, which is recorded on the video, is then the ultimate arbiter. Simple: if on review the puck goes in the net before the whistle tweet is heard, it's a goal.

That probably would not have helped Michigan with the Miami (NTM) goal, but 90 percent of those bad calls would be un-done, and we would at least have a very easy-to-call method that makes sense. Quick whistles still suck, but at least players can react (or stop reacting) to a heard whistle, as opposed to an intended whistle.

Irish

May 12th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

If you're counting, I think it is 5 transfers and 3 drafted over the past few years for ND TEs.  And no one in between, talk about divergent paths.