USA hockey icing rule change 14u and below

[Zjack38 46]

http://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/804355?referrer_id=752796

Very interesting that they would do this. Especially for only 14u and below.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Well, going off of their 'skill development' POV, it makes sense. That what the 14U and below levels should be about. Will the rule change actually work? Eh haha. I think skill development falls more on us coaches and players buying in to the practice plan. The rule change that I really like, especially as an official, is the automate GM for foul language. Nothing better than being cursed at by a 12 year old kid or coach and I, the official, still have to act professional. The GM will help curb the direct vulgar language. 

[chk hrd 164]

I don't care for it. You ice the puck and it's a defensive zone face off and you can change players. I can see it helping to teach creativity in coming out of the zone but that's about it. But it's going to create a lot of turn overs resulting in goals. I would still have my players throw the puck out but just into the opposite D zone if they got into trouble. I don't think the offensive players will get much out of it unless they are a high level team that works on face off plays, then it's only a 50-50 chance that it will work. I think you get more as an offensive player starting behind your net and learning how to go through the neutral zone and enter the offensive zone to set up plays.

[chippa13 1844]

It forces the defending players to try to make plays coming out of the zone and it saves the 15-20 seconds of lost powerplay time that would have occurred from a "legal icing". I've always been a proponent of getting rid of free icing when killing a powerplay, at all levels.

[psulion22 402]

36 minutes ago, chk hrd said:

I don't care for it. You ice the puck and it's a defensive zone face off and you can change players. I can see it helping to teach creativity in coming out of the zone but that's about it. But it's going to create a lot of turn overs resulting in goals. I would still have my players throw the puck out but just into the opposite D zone if they got into trouble. I don't think the offensive players will get much out of it unless they are a high level team that works on face off plays, then it's only a 50-50 chance that it will work. I think you get more as an offensive player starting behind your net and learning how to go through the neutral zone and enter the offensive zone to set up plays.

But that's the point - to force defensive players to make higher skilled plays, including touch dump-outs that die before crossing the the far goal line.  This rule change isn't necessarily to increase the skill of the attacking players, though it will because of what Chippa says below.

27 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

It forces the defending players to try to make plays coming out of the zone and it saves the 15-20 seconds of lost powerplay time that would have occurred from a "legal icing". I've always been a proponent of getting rid of free icing when killing a powerplay, at all levels.

I agree.  Why should you be allowed to slam a puck out with no control and tick of 15-20 seconds of a 120 second PP if you can't do that at even strength?  I'd also like to see them make the blue line the icing line rather than the center line.  You'd only have to get the puck out of your zone to send it down, but you'd have to do it with control.

[chk hrd 164]

I don't think it will force the D to act much different. Instead of throwing all the way down the ice it will be throw it to the circles, lob it out or chip it out hard off the boards, everything they already do. All they need to do is get it out of the D zone then everyone has to come back and set up. Sometimes it's harder to set up from the neutral zone and the O team may have to take it farther back (especially at the higher levels). Players will start to adapt on how much it takes to get it out without icing. At the lower levels you are still going to kill time. At the higher levels you might save a second or two.

[chippa13 1844]

Just chipping it to the neutral zone removes the opportunity to change up. 

[chk hrd 164]

I would say that depends on the age, skill level and if you have the long or short change. I guess my point would be I think this will affect more how the game is coached than building more skill.

[Kgbeast 195]

I think that this icing rule change lets shorthanded team to change players during the penalty rather than play the same line for the duration. 14 and under can try different things while shorthanded, plus can rest players that might have got hurt a little blocking shots. More face offs also means more opportunities for power play team to setup and start fresh. Winning faceoffs is a skill as well. This rule change also introduces opportunity for more strategic plays by both teams. I think it worth the trouble. Actually would not mind it in NHL games.

[psulion22 402]

On 6/16/2017 at 6:30 PM, chk hrd said:

I don't think it will force the D to act much different. Instead of throwing all the way down the ice it will be throw it to the circles, lob it out or chip it out hard off the boards, everything they already do. All they need to do is get it out of the D zone then everyone has to come back and set up. Sometimes it's harder to set up from the neutral zone and the O team may have to take it farther back (especially at the higher levels). Players will start to adapt on how much it takes to get it out without icing. At the lower levels you are still going to kill time. At the higher levels you might save a second or two.

Did you read the article attached?  That's the point. Soft lobs and chips are a much higher skill play than hammering the puck down as hard as you can as soon as you touch it without picking your head up. If players stop icing it and learn to lob it out softly, then the change will have worked as intended. Plus if they learn to slow down and puck their heads up to get the puck out safely, maybe they will further learn to make controlled passes in space or skate the puck out. We're talking about U14 kids here. Teaching them finesse and awareness, if nothing else, will be a positive outcome. 

[DarkStar50 679]

Talking to some AAA coaches at the rink and they are not sold on the rule change. If the penalty for a team icing the puck on a power play is a defensive zone face off and your PK unit is a minute into the penalty in "the period of the long change", most coaches will take that face off to get a fresh PK unit on the ice. Also, games will run longer with the icing whistles and consequently screw up rink scheduling.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

20 minutes ago, DarkStar50 said:

Talking to some AAA coaches at the rink and they are not sold on the rule change. If the penalty for a team icing the puck on a power play is a defensive zone face off and your PK unit is a minute into the penalty in "the period of the long change", most coaches will take that face off to get a fresh PK unit on the ice. Also, games will run longer with the icing whistles and consequently screw up rink scheduling.

As a ref, that was with first thing I thought of ha. That being it, it shouldn't be that bad. If you have a discipline team, you won't have to deal with the new rule change as often. Like I've said before, that is where coaches have to held accountable. You don't nearly hear people talk about coaches showing their kids how to play hockey cleanly. It is possible.

[shoeshine boy 242]

On 6/24/2017 at 1:11 PM, DarkStar50 said:

 Also, games will run longer with the icing whistles and consequently screw up rink scheduling.

as an adult league player who often has to play after kids games this is what concerns me. in most rinks youth hockey is king and the rinks don't enforce the curfew and run the clock like they should. 

here's what will end up happening: kids game runs long because of extra whistles, rink will try to make up time by rushing adult league games afterwards by either shrinking warm-ups or shrinking time between periods.

[psulion22 402]

I don't know.  We're under the assumption that you'll get all these icings because every time the PK team throws the puck down would now result in a whistle.  But knowing it would be an icing, players may not fire the puck out as a default just because they could.  Which, of course, is the point of the rule change.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

5 hours ago, psulion22 said:

I don't know.  We're under the assumption that you'll get all these icings because every time the PK team throws the puck down would now result in a whistle.  But knowing it would be an icing, players may not fire the puck out as a default just because they could.  Which, of course, is the point of the rule change.

Agreed. I mean how many additional whistles are we talking about here? Once again, coming from the perspective of an official, it won't add nearly as much time as people think.

[MN old and slow 92]

I hate the new rule but keep in mind I am an old man from northern MN stuck in my ways. 

[DarkStar50 679]

Is this rule change really going to develop the next generation of Erik Karlsson type players for USA Hockey that they think it will ? I really doubt it. So in the meantime USA Hockey creates a generation of players playing the game with a rule the players will abandon before they even age-out of travel hockey. Oh, and the goal of this rule was to create these Karlsson type players for the next level ? Seriously, out of all participating USAH youth players, how many get to that next level? Less than one-half of one percent, maybe. What a joke this rule really is when you dig deeper into it's motivation. 

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Haha I mean, you should always look to foster an environment that forces kids to learn the skill of the game and grow on that skill(s). Is this rule any worse than taking checking out of PeeWee (or 12U) hockey? Overall, I agree with you @DarkStar50: I'm not sure what this rule's true purpose is. That being said, I will continue to say that coaches need to be more accountable for making their players better. 

[DarkStar50 679]

The AAA coaches I have talked to here at my rink told me that is the idea behind the no icing on PK rule: to specifically develop stick-handling skills instead of just smash it against the glass on the PK and ice the puck. Since that is the thinking behind the rule change and there are really not a lot of PP opportunities, the impetus behind this rule results in few opportunities to actually make a difference in any player's ability to improve puck possession over a season. Just make icing a two minute penalty !!! 

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Yep: the coaches are telling you what USA Hockey has told us from its official press release. Haha you are hitting on my initial reaction the the rule change. I felt it will dissuade teams from taking penalties. And for that reason, based on MY logic, it falls on the coaches (I'm including myself) to hold their players to a HIGHER standard of playing the game of hockey without taking unnecessary penalties. 2-min minors for icing would be interesting though haha. I know it would cut the number of face-offs down just the shear fear of getting a penalty.  

[shoeshine boy 242]

6 hours ago, DarkStar50 said:

So in the meantime USA Hockey creates a generation of players playing the game with a rule the players will abandon before they even age-out of travel hockey. 

hasn't USA Hockey been doing this for years with it's offside rules? everyone else has changed to tag-up offside but (unless I missed the change) USA Hockey is still using automatic offside.

the only difference here being that, for now they'll play bantam and midget the "old way".

[hawkeyfan 36]

I am mixed on this...

-The long change makes it crazy sometimes to get players changed.

-The icing impact is back to your zone and typically that shorthanded situation allowed you to bend the rules slightly.

-This should make teams hold the puck, which is good and carry the puck up the ice...I actually like this.  My biggest beef with some youth hockey is kids you just shuck the puck forward and refuse to carry it or maintain possesion.

-The best part is it should avoid having parents yelling  "ICE IT"...so maybe they are trying to find another way to muffle the loud mouth parents.

[Purplefan 1]

On 6/24/2017 at 10:11 AM, DarkStar50 said:

Talking to some AAA coaches at the rink and they are not sold on the rule change. If the penalty for a team icing the puck on a power play is a defensive zone face off and your PK unit is a minute into the penalty in "the period of the long change", most coaches will take that face off to get a fresh PK unit on the ice. Also, games will run longer with the icing whistles and consequently screw up rink scheduling.

I think you'll run into curfews and games not ending based on the game clock striking zero.

[DarkStar50 679]

I was referring to youth travel hockey which is generally heavily scheduled in our rinks on Saturday/Sunday starting at 7 am and ending by 7:30 pm before mens league starts on Sunday nights. There is no curfew on hockey at our rinks.

[MN old and slow 92]

I do not mind the loud parents.  Here in MN the loud parents know da game well. Loud with passion and knowledge for the game better than just loud.