The UHL brass and all of the on-ice officials were in Fort Wayne today at McMillen Park Ice Arena for their annual pre-season meetings. They've held it in Fort Wayne I believe ever since the Komets joined the UHL.
One of the main topics of discussion was the UHL is going to follow the NHL and not allow defensive line changes after icings. They are also talking about not allowing line changes after a player shoots the puck into the stands from his own defensive zone. The goal is to continue increasing offense. I like these rules because they encourage offensive aggressiveness. Death to the neutral zone trap!
One hot topic was telling the linesmen not to jump in so quickly on fights unless it looks like a player is at a distinct disadvantage. In other words, let them go to a point, and more than they have been.
I also still think there might be a chance for allowing the home team to decide whether to shoot first or second in shootouts. The UHL is already going to shave the ice before shootouts, in part because the quality of ice is so inconsistent at some arenas, especially depending upon the time of year.
The home team should elect to shoot first every time as the team that scores first wins 74 percent of the time, giving the road team a big advantage since they shoot first. What about this? How much fun would it be as a home-team promotion while the ice is being shaved to ask the crowd to vote on whether a team should shoot first or second?
I also suggested that all of hockey should consider making any high stick infraction a 4-minute penalty instead of a 2-minute penalty. That would clean up a lot of garbage right away. Can anyone give me a reason why this should not happen? I've been thinking all day about why hockey would want to stick with a regular penalty for high sticking, especially considering the cost of insurance and the safety issue. and I'm trying to figure out if there's some reason I haven't considered.
I'd still like to see a two minute delay of game penalty for any player who shoots the puck outside the rink. I know that's a little tougher because there is no uniform height for glass in each building, but I think a league's first priority ought to be protecting fans.
What other rules changes would you like to see? Forget about it, they'll never get rid of the instigator penalty. LOL.
Comments
Make it legal to check a goalie if he is way out of the crease! I'm tired of seeing a goalie come way out to a puck and turn his back to an opponent to protect it. I know the arguement, it's a rule to help protect the goalie's health...that's crap. If there could be marked lines that if the goalies go by that make them game just like everyone else, it's up to the goalie to decide if he wants to risk getting hit.
There will be a trapazoid behind the goal this year so that's taken care of already.
As far as the high sticking goes, I think its fine the way that it is. Give the official the option depending on the severity of the penalty. A 4 min. penalty for an infraction that is incidental would be over the top in my opinion. But as we all know, I'm a fan of "goon" hockey and want 18 Jeff Worlton's and a goalie on my roster....lol.
I'm just afraid that you'll have every player within 10 feet of a raised stick falling over, covering their eye if high sticking is a 4 minute penalty. Not to say that players don't sometimes over exaggerate a high sticking to draw the penalty, but a 4 minute penalty can drastically give one team an andvantage over the other. I say leave the 4 minutes for the blood.
What if you raised it to 4:00 for diving?
still looking for the reason not to move the league office?
If you want to keep the sticks down don't give a 4, give a 5. Then a game for the next one, the a game and a suspension, then a another gmae and so on. IMO, there are a bunch of candy arse's that are in charge of discipline that don't want to give out suspenions for some reason.
If diving got a 4 minute penalty, I think it could work. I wouldn't be against that.
Rumor has it Ruid isn't going to Sign. can you confirm that Blake?
In many youth leagues high sticking is 4 minutes. That is how they teach kids to keep control of their sticks. Diving should be a 10 minute misconduct. It makes a mochery of the game.
While I agree that the diving penalty should be increased, I also believe they need to actually call a dive. How often do you actually see it called? Give diving a 10 min misconduct and if they do it again in the same game, suspend the player for 1 game. That would really cut down the players and teams that are constantly diving.
I hate dives!!!!!
I still have not got an answer (that makes sence) about how a player can get a dive call on the same play a player gets called for a trip. If you call the dive, there should be no trip. If there is a trip, you shouldn't call the dive.
I understand players that feel a stick around them/at their feet might "fall" to try to encourge the tripping, but there should only be one of them called. Am I the only one that has a problem with this?
Actually, it does make sense and I've asked several officials to explain it. If a player embellishes at all, it's a dive even if he is legitimately hooked.
But the rule shouldn't be like that. If there is an action that deserves a call, call it. If there is not, call the dive if a player dives.
Calling both is like calling a do-over. Next we should let a coach that disagrees with a call to pick up the puck and call out, "It's my puck and I'm going home!"
I agree with the tripping/diving thing brandon mentioned. I have never understood that call. If you a player gets called for tripping how can the other player get called for diving????? I guess it's like punishing them both cause the linesman didn't really see who was at fault!!
Hoss, the problem isn't with the rule so much as with the referees. A lot of times it is a dive and a hook, but I agree that more often than not it should be one or the other. Too often the refs cop out when they are calling both.
Guys, think of it in basketball terms when it comes to taking a charge. 99.9% of the time you don't get the charge call unless you fall on your back like you have been shot. Most of those guys could get knocked backwards but stay on their feet. They fall back to put emphasis on the fact that they drew the charge. A guy can get hooked legitimate and cause it to impede his progress which should result in a penalty. Truthfully because of the lack of consistant calls in this league many players feel the need to swan dive face first across the ice to get a call because if they try to stay on their feet and keep going the hook probably will not get called.
I am exhausted so I hope this made sense
Don't worry, Tony, it makes as much sense as you ever do. LOL. Now, what were you talking about?
Lol. Just that "selling" a foul/penalty is one thing but some of the swan dives I see in hockey go over the line.
Now I am going to bed LOL
Blake,
I see where you're coming from, but to follow along Tony E's line of thinking, except using baseball terms, calling a dive and a hook on the same play would be like calling a ball AND a strike on the same pitch.
It shouldn't be both - either penalize the guy for the hook OR penalize the guy for diving. I will feel this way until the day I die. Now, I realize that may make too much sense to us knowledgeable hockey fans ... if that's the case, though, why can't the people who make the rules figure that out???
The NHL finally fixed the stupid obstruction-by-interference situation dropping the "obstruction" terminology and calling the penalties for what they were. This nonsense with the dive and hook calls at the same time has to stop. Referees in other sports have to make decisive calls (usually they make the right ones, but not always to everyone's liking). Why can't hockey officials be required (and graded) for doing the same?
Jeff, but then what do you do when it is obviously both, and we've all seen instances where it has been both. I agree that probably 60-70 percent of the time it should be one or the other. The problem comes in when a ref doesn't want to make the call and put one team on a power play so he calls them both for a make-up. To me, that's cheap. Of course last year, Lance Galbraith would have been in the box 10 more times than he was anyway.
Oh, forgot to include that this year each UHL on-ice official is going to get a DVD of each game before they leave the rink. The league hopes this will be a good instructional tool. Can't hurt.
Blake, I will volunteer to do the soundtrack for the dvds. Just as long as I can put the sound byte "This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth" on every dvd.
You know what would be great for the league? If there was some way to have two cameras, one on each goal just for the sake of goal reviews. I understand this could become expensive for the league to do this, but it would add a touch of professionalism to this level of minor league hockey.
Tony, I agree with the basketball comparison, but I don't think the a NBA ref has ever called a charge on one guy and then turn around and give a "T" to the other guy for his "flop" otherwise Divac (sp?) would be in trouble!
1. A trip that is truly a trip that is embellished for visual effect is NOT a dive. A dive is when there is no trip but you make it look like there was. It may be unsportsmanlike to embellish, but if you've really been tripped, you cannot also dive. Maybe they can give a 2min to the tripper and a misconduct to the embellisher -- that way the embellisher is penalized but his team still gets the power play. If they insist on giving out concurrent 2min penalties, they might as well not call anything at all.
2. Plenty of high-sticking is unintentional. Should a player really get a 4min penalty because an opposing player bumped against his stick when grinding it out in the corner? Let the official make the call based on intent and degree of injury.
3. The DVD won't do any good if the officials don't watch it and/or have someone pointing things out to them that they didn't see the first time. I think they will be inclined to simply see the same exact game they saw the first time unless there is an objective set of eyes watching it with them.
4. I've been wanting two goal cameras (preferably mounted directly overhead, like the NHL does) for ages and ages. Not only would it eliminate any question about whether the puck crossed the line and bounced back out, whether there was goaltender interference, etc., but it would also be an excellent training tool for the coaches. I don't buy that there would be too much expense involved, either. You don't have any extra labor involved, because you don't need to have a camera operator at all. Simply turn the camera on when the game starts and turn it off when the final horn blows and burn it onto the same DVD that you're putting the game on. The teams already invested the money into putting DVD technology into each stadium, why not pass the hat at one game to raise a couple hundred bucks to buy two more stationary cameras?
Newbie in regards to #3 I can tell you having a tape of the game is VERY helpful to an official. Believe it or not officials do try to get better. Watching a tape will allow them to see how their positioning was on the ice and if a call was missed was it because of simple human error or perhaps if they could have positioned themselves better. Believe me these guys are not doing it for the money they are making at the UHL level. They are doing it because they enjoy the profession and because they want to improve and move up. I would bet they welcome the chance to have a DVD as a learning tool.
In regards to #2. Yes I think to keep sticks down you punish more harsly and it should be automatic. Players can learn to keep sticks down.
I do like idea #1, give the embelisher a misconduct.
Blake,
I agree there are times when it is both, but I would almost venture it's one or the other more than 60-70 percent of the time (just my estimation).
Personally, I kind of like some of the other suggestions on here about punishing the "diver" more severely.
I can't remember where I read it, but back in the 60s or 70s an NHL referee sent two guys off for "dancing" (not fighting or roughing) and had the PA announcer say it that way. Clarence Campbell (who was NHL president at the time) admonished the referee and recommended he stick to using either fighting or roughing in the future.
but back in the 60s or 70s an NHL referee sent two guys off for "dancing" (not fighting or roughing) and had the PA announcer say it that way
Would have been hilarious if the DJ had played some dancing music along with it! LOL
You'll never see goal cams in this league because of expenses and building specifications. For one thing, you'd have to have some poor slob in Flint up there wiping the frost off the lens every minute. These are not NHL buildings and it would be cost prohibitive.
Don't forget, I've been the first one to get on the league to call more diving penalties. Remember when I called Quad City Swan Lake because of all the acting? It seems like each season I beg the league to call it once a game or the first month or so and then it would disappear.
It might be more than 60-70 percent but remember I had to watch all the games with Galbraith last year so that probably threw my percent off. LOL.
The misconduct idea is fantastic.
Tell you what, I'll try to get ahold of a ref that I've talked to in the past this week and ask him to explain the hook/dive call for us.