First, a big thanks to Craig for taking the time to post this.  A few
comments and notes on the changes:
 
>From the May 19, 1993 edition of the NCAA News:
>
>ICE HOCKEY COMMITTEE TAKES HARD LINE ON INTERFERENCE
...
>The committee expressed its concern that because interference infractions
>often take place away from the play, officials sometimes think they cannot
>call a penalty. The committee hopes that taking a hard line on three specific
>areas of interference will decrease the number of interference incidents.
 
I have often said that I think interference is both the most-called and
least-called penalty in college.  The interference section (6-24) is
getting to be one of the largest areas in the rule book.  Yet, there are
numerous situations in which it occurs and is let go.  A number of changes
to the interference rule along with several notes have found their way
into the book in recent years, but they're often ignored.  It appears
that they're taking another stab at cracking down on it.
 
>With regard to the clinics, the committee issued a strong statement of
>support
>for the officiating-improvement program and the officiating mechanics that
>have been developed for all college ice hockey officials. The committee
>stressed that to achieve a national consistency in officiating, all hockey
>conferences would have to work together to implement the officiating
>mechanics.
 
I applaud this, especially the part about the conferences working together.
 
...
>The committee voted again to recommend to the NCAA Executive Committee that
>the half-shield face mask be allowed for intercollegiate competition.
 
I believe this was recommended last year but not acted upon.
 
>In terms of major playing rules, the committee made the following changes:
>
>* Added wording to the fighting rule (6-14-a) to define fighting as any
>attempt to punch an opponent.
 
It will be interesting to see both how the referees interpret this rule
and how the players handle it.  It has been said that in college, one
punch constitutes fighting and is grounds for an ejection, but in actuality
this is rarely the case.  Currently the attempt to throw a punch is not
defined in the rule.
 
>* Added wording to Rule 6-15-c-10 so that a goal shall not be allowed if the
>goal cage has been moved or dislodged.
 
This seems to be a direct result of the goal that Maine appeared to have
scored in Milwaukee when the net was lifted up.  That's the only time I
ever saw it happen.
 
>* Added wording to Rule 6-1-1 to state: "After a game, any verbal or physical
>abuse directed at an official shall result in a disqualification penalty and
>is subject to the progressive game-disqualification structure."
 
Currently, only a misconduct is to be assessed for this.
 
>* Added a new rule (Rule 6-30-f) so that if a player intentionally is pushed
>offside, the offside violation shall be nullified and play will continue.
 
I like this rule, but it's bound to complicate the calling of offside.
 
>In other actions at its May 11-14 meeting in Hilton Head, S.C., the Men's Ice
>Hockey Rules Committee:
...
>* Deleted a sentence from Rule 4-2-d that states: "This rule also shall apply
>when a goal is scored on a penalty shot."
 
This rule deals with 2 minors being called on a player at once and the
opposing team scoring before the first penalty expires.  The first minor
is to be wiped out and the time on the 2nd begins.  Penalty shots won't
affect this situation any more.
 
>* Defined coincidental penalties for Rule 4-2-e and Rule 4-3-b to include
>penalties assessed at the same stoppage of play.
 
I'm not sure where this adds anything new...I am guessing it comes into
play in situations where a delayed penalty or penalties are being called
and after the whistle, other penalties are called.
 
>* Added a sentance to Rule 5-6-b-2 that states: "A referee shall inform the
>offending team's captain as to the violation that caused the misconduct
>penalty."
 
Previously, there was no provision to explain this.
 
>* Revised slightly Rule 6-6-b so that a minor or major penalty, at the
>discretion of the referee, shall be imposed on a player who charges or
>otherwise fouls a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is in the goal crease.
 
This deals with charging.  The wording "...or privileged area" appears to
be deleted.  This would mean that charging can no longer be called for
hitting the goalie in the privileged area (the box bounded by the end
faceoff dots and the back boards), but it can still be called in the
crease.  Goalies would then be treated like any other player once they
leave the crease.  I think this is a significant change.
 
>* Revised Rule 6-7-b to state that a disqualification penalty may be imposed
>on any player who injures an opponent by cross-checking.
 
"May" was changed from "shall", giving leeway to the referees as to whether
or not a DQ will be assessed.
 
>* Revised Rule 6-10-a and b so that: a. A minor or major shall be imposed on
>any player who uses the elbow or knee in such a manner as to foul an
>opponent,
 
Previously, just a minor.
 
>and b. A disqualification penalty may be imposed on any player who injures an
>opponent as the result of a foul committed by using the elbow or knee.
 
Like before, "may" changed from "shall".  No longer mandatory.
 
>* Revised the wording slightly in Rule 6-15-c-8 so that a goal shall not be
>allowed if an attacking player intentionally propels or deflects the puck
>other than with the stick, or illegally with the stick, and it bounds or
>deflects off the person or equipment of any defensive player into the net.
 
"Intentionally" added.  Again, allowing for interpretation on the part
of the ref.
 
>* Deleted part of a sentence in Rule 6-17-b-2-d to include "but may not pass
>it to a teammate."
 
This deals with handling the puck.  I'm assuming this means this part of
the rule was deleted.  It used to read, "With the hands or arms, the
goalkeeper may propel the puck on the ice or bat it in the air towards
the opponents' end of the rink but may not pass it to a teammate."  Sounds
like this will now be legal.
 
>* Eliminated the reference point on the boards (Rule 6-20-b-Note) at the top
>of the face-off circles.
 
I think this was a mistake...6-20-b deals with hitting from behind and
has no mention of the reference points.  6-30-b does include the note
(or did).
 
>* Voted to recommend to the NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Committee that
>television monitors be used in championship competition to resolve disputed
>goals at the request of the referee.
 
I like this.  Maybe it means the tourney games will definitely have to
be on tv so they'll have the necessary replays. :-)
 
>* Voted to allow the Hockey East Conference and the Western Collegiate Hockey
>Association to experiment with shoot-outs to decide games that are tied after
>overtime.
 
Yikes.  I think I have gone on record before as saying I'm opposed to the
shootout to decide games.  It will be exciting for the fans, but I am
against deciding games in a way other than playing it out on the ice.
I'll try to look into how this will be handled, but immediate questions
I have are:
 
* How will shootout losses be represented in the standings?  Pro leagues
that use this sometimes give a point for a shootout loss.  Standings may
change to show "W-L-SOL" (shootout losses).  I'm assuming this means that
the shootouts will only take place in conference games.  I wonder if it
means only regular season.
 
* How will these results be counted for NC$$ tourney consideration?  I
would think that once the game ends as a tie after OT, the NC$$ will
consider it a tie for both teams, although the shootout will result in
a win for one and a tie for the other.  We'll have to keep track of two
sets of records for these teams.
 
This is going to wreak havoc with the programs I've written to maintain
the standings and team schedules.  Currently, they look at the game
results and award a win to the team with more goals.  If anyone has any
suggestions on how to handle this, especially those who have written
similar programs, I'd be interested to hear from you.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
alternate address days: [log in to unmask]             *HMN*  11/13/93
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)