Thanks to Craig Cheslog for reporting on the proposed NC$$ Ice Hockey
Rules Changes for the upcoming season.  As always, I have some questions:
 
> The committee, which met May 11-14 at Hilton Head, S.C., stressed the
> following situations would be cause for an automatic penalty:
>
> * Holding, picking, or pinching a player excessively against the boards
>     after the puck has been played;
> * Interference that affects a prime goal-scoring opportunity, and
> * Holding an opponent's stick anywhere on the ice.
 
   Once again, I wonder whether these "points of emphasis" will be more
strictly enforced early in the season (as has been the case in past seasons
for other rules clarifications), then all but ignored after the whining and
carping reach a deafening roar.  Personally, I would think that it's going
to take some time for both referees and players alike to get a feel for
exactly what constitutes "excessive" pinching along the boards.  As for
the emphasis on holding an opponent's stick, IMHO this is long overdue;
my favorite tactic is when a player traps an opponent's stick under his
armpit to impede his opponent's progress (I wonder whether this will be
considered "holding" the stick ??).
 
> In terms of major playing rules, the committee made the following changes:
>
> * 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.
 
   Since when has a goal ever been allowed in this circumstance ??
 
> * 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.
 
   A good rule on paper, though I expect it will be called about as often as
intentional off-sides (which seems never to be called for games on end, then
boom, three calls in the same game :-)
 
> In other actions at its May 11-14 meeting in Hilton Head, S.C., the Men's Ice
> Hockey Rules Committee:
>
> * Recommended that the hockey conferences review Rule 1-3-a (release-type
> goal-post fixtures) to ensure the safety of all ice hockey student-athletes.
 
   Is the committee recommending the elimination or adoption of release-type
goal fixtures is this instance ??  Are magnetic or bendable rubber stanchions
suggested in place of standard steel fixtures ??
 
> * Added a recommendation to Rule 1-3-g that the interior metal of the goal
> cage be padded (excluding the goal posts and cross bar).
 
   For player protection or to keep the puck in the cage ??
 
> * Deleted a sentence from Rule 4-2-d that states: "This rule also shall apply
> when a goal is scored on a penalty shot."
 
   And Rule 4-2-d applies specifically to what infraction that now no longer
applies to penalty shots ??
 
> * 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.
 
   No more throws off the defenseman's torso ??  This takes away a major
weapon from RPI's K. Askew, who almost "single-handedly" :-) rallied RPI
to a come-from-behind victory at UNH this season ....
 
> * Deleted part of a sentence in Rule 6-17-b-2-d to include "but may not pass
> it to a teammate."
 
  Again, under what circumstances are passes to a teammate now allowed under
Rule 6-17-b-2-d ...
 
> * 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.
 
   Gee - should this be called the Shawn Walsh rule (even if the Black Bears
managed to beat Michigan anyway :-)
 
> * 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.
 
   What exactly does this mean ??  If only HE and the WCHA will be
"experimenting" with this abomination this season, does this mean that
unresolved ties after overtime will be recorded as ties on the teams
individual NC$$ records, but that a shootout will be used to determine
a "winner" for conference standings ??  This is beginning to sound like
the MISL, which at various times awarded conference points for margin of
victory, total goals scored, regulation ties, etc., etc.  Has the NC$$
gotten even with the Gophers for "tieing the tie record" this season :-)
 
Some food for thought on a lazy summer evening in Maryland ....
 
Jim Love
Go Blue !!