The only downside to implementing no touch icing would be that it would eliminate that play the Sedins started doing a lot this season, where one of them would start skating as fast as he can down the wing, and the other slaps it down into the corner of the ice, aiming for a ricochet of the boards and a scoring chance.
They should only blow the whistle if the opposing player doesn't have a chance of touching it first. If they both have a chance, don't blow the whistle. Hybrid style.
What about all the plays where a team purposely ices the puck because they know a teammate can get to it first which will lead to offense, isn't that what everybody complains about? We need more offense?
It's fine the way it is. I honestly don't even remember the last time somebody was hurt in a race for an icing call anyway.
They should only blow the whistle if the opposing player doesn't have a chance of touching it first. If they both have a chance, don't blow the whistle. Hybrid style.
I don't see how that improves anything aside from saving 3 seconds (on the clock only) for an icing.
The guys are still racing full speed in order to touch the puck first, which is where injuries happen.
As far as I'm concerned go full non-touch. When the puck crosses the icing line the linesman makes a quick judgement call to see who would have got there first. If it's the attacking player icing is immediately waved off, if it's the defending player or it is a tie, then it's blown as icing.
I went to an Australian Ice Hockey League match for the first time on Sunday night (let's face it, it's not the most popular sport over here) and no touch icing had been implemented as a rule.
To put it bluntly, it's very lame. It takes an attacking aspect out of the match (the chase down of the puck). I fail to see the benefits other than saving a few seconds here or there.
As someone who watches the WHL a lot, there is one thing that annoyed me about no touch icing. When there was a missed breakaway pass the forward would still have a chance to be first to the puck, but there would be a icing call.
The easy solution to that is to leave it in the linesman's hands. If the attacking player looks like he'll get there first, it's immediately waived off
I wouldn't be opposed to it. They would have to add a 2 minute intentional icing penalty as well. Although, what hatterson said above me is probably better.
It would save a couple injuries a year which is always a plus in my book.
I don't see how that improves anything aside from saving 3 seconds (on the clock only) for an icing.
The guys are still racing full speed in order to touch the puck first, which is where injuries happen.
As far as I'm concerned go full non-touch. When the puck crosses the icing line the linesman makes a quick judgement call to see who would have got there first. If it's the attacking player icing is immediately waved off, if it's the defending player or it is a tie, then it's blown as icing.
As best I understood hybrid, there's still a race to touch the puck first, which is where danger comes in.
My idea was that the linesman makes a call that it's either icing (and blown dead right away) or it's not icing (and it's waived off right away). The only race to the puck is the race to get control of it, which is always under much more control since you can't just skate full speed and slap at the puck, you have to be in control of yourself and stop against the boards with control of the puck or the other guy will just skate away with it
The only point you are right about is less injury. The linesmen will still have to skate to grab the puck before the next faceoff. It will not save time. As for injuries, there is the potential for injury on every play. Honestly... how many players get injured because of touch icing? The only player I can think of without google is Bergeron.
and shorten game lengths, which is always good in sports.
Actually it would make the game slightly longer. Each touch-icing call runs the clock a few more seconds than it would if we had no-touch icing. Over the course of the game, maybe 30-60 seconds are taken off the clock this way... and we know how long 30-60 "game seconds" can last in real time with stoppages.
What it does do is make those 30-60 seconds count for something real, instead of wasting them in the formality of touching-up.
As someone who watches the WHL a lot, there is one thing that annoyed me about no touch icing. When there was a missed breakaway pass the forward would still have a chance to be first to the puck, but there would be a icing call.
Yah, that's a problem. I was under the impression that there was a new rule a couple years ago where icing was waved off it was the result of an obvious pass that didn't connect. That always sounded like a good compromise to me. It seemed to have disappeared.
No touch icing limits the options to make plays though. I know, when Stillman-Staal-Cole was a line in Carolina, the players knew each other really well and the limits of each other's ability.
When Stillman thought Cole had a step on the defender, he'd have no problem icing the puck, because he knew Cole would reach the puck first. What would often happen is that Cole would beat the icing, and make a pass to Staal, who was crashing the net at the same time. Led to some great chances.
No disrespect to any player that's been injured during a race to negate an icing call, but these injuries occur on dump-ins as well. This happened to Sebastien Savage nearly 6 years ago on a play that started in the neutral zone, but across the red line.
I'd be ok with the Hybrid style, but anyone who thinks these injuries will disappear by eliminating touch icing is mistaken. How many icings are called for every injury like Foster's? The problem in most instances like his is the forechecking player, not the rule. This was not the case with Savage as he was the forechecker- who fell over his opponent who had slipped, leaving him to slide head-first into the end boards.
No touch icing should be a no brainer for the NHLPA. I can see how some people would be opposed to it, but I think that safety trumps everything in this scenario.
I like the idea of refs having the option to call delay of game on icing as a deterrent. However as much as I like how stricter calling of penalties has opened up the game I really don't want to see a substantial percentage increase in penalties through the games.
