MEMORANDUM. TO: NCAA Ice Hockey Conference Commissioners, Head Coaches and Coordinators of Officials.

Transcription

1 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL MEMORANDUM April 21, 2014 TO: NCAA Ice Hockey Conference Commissioners, Head Coaches and Coordinators of Officials. FROM: Tom Anastos, chair NCAA Men s and Women s Ice Hockey Rules Committee Steve Piotrowski, secretary-rules editor NCAA Men s and Women s Ice Hockey Rules Committee. SUBJECT: Conference / American Ice Hockey Coaches Association (AHCA) Discussion Items. This memorandum is intended to assist NCAA ice hockey conferences and coaches to plan for the upcoming conference meetings leading into the AHCA convention and to be engaged in the playing rules process. Hopefully this communication will help frame your conference discussions. List of topics. Included with this mailing is a list of topics collected through the season from coaches, conferences and game officials. It is requested that you discuss at your conference meetings. These topics will be the basis of the rules sessions at the AHCA convention. AHCA convention schedule. As was the case in the past, representatives from the rules committee will attend each division/gender sessions on the morning of Thursday, May 1 (see the AHCA Convention schedule for specific information). We will have a follow-up session for all groups on Friday, May 2 from 11:20-11:50 a.m. in the River of Grass Room. The committee will also meet with the supervisors of officials for each conference during the lunch hour on Friday. Annual rules survey. The committee will distribute an online rules survey soon after the AHCA convention in preparation for the annual meeting in June. This will allow for full discussions at conference meetings and AHCA sessions before the survey is finalized. Rules meeting and process. The rules committee meets June 2-4 in Indianapolis.

2 NCAA MEMORANDUM April 21, 2014 Page No. 2 This is a rules change year for the committee and proposals that are made will be distributed soon after the meeting. Coaches and conferences will have a comment period following the meeting. The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will review the proposals and comments at its meeting on July 16. Once approved, the rules will become final and be in place for the and seasons. Link to propose a rule. If you would like to add a discussion item to the committee s list, please use either the link below or include the proposal in the opportunity to provide feedback at the end of the rules survey. The link to make a proposal is here: Thank you for your time and attention to this information. Good luck with your conference meetings and we look forward to seeing you at the AHCA Convention. TA/SP:bw Enclosure cc: NCAA Men s and Women s Ice Hockey Rules Committee Selected NCAA Staff Members

3 2014 NCAA Ice Hockey Rules Committee Agenda/Proposals Worksheet Last Update: April 19, 2014 I. Review of Previous Changes. Rule Change Rationale Notes/Action Net Dislodgement Hand Pass In Defensive Zone Goals Scored off of Skates Allowing Reviews of Offside/Too Many Men that Directly Lead to a Goal Faceoff Exception Allows officials to allow a goal when the defensive team knocks the net off and the puck enters the net. Hand passes initiated in the defensive zone result in the offending team not being able to change its players. Altered rule to clarify that anything other than a distinct kicking motion will be allowed as a legal goal. Allows video review of Too Many Men and Offsides that directly lead to a goal for possible overturn. When the attacking team s defensemen encroach on a stoppage in the attacking zone, the faceoff shall be in the neutral zone. Too many goals were being disallowed by rule because the net was dislodged. The committee did not believe allowing the defensive team to hand pass the puck was appropriate and provided a significant advantage. Adding the additional penalty of not being allowed to change provides the offensive team some relief as well. To make the rule more clear and to reward the offensive team with some skill plays. With the prevalence of video review, clear infractions that directly lead to a goal should be reviewed. To penalize an attacking team for creating an altercation after the whistle. Video on the Bench Rule passed to prohibit the use of video in the No previous rule and the committee believed

4 bench area. it was needed. Bench Personnel Increased to 8. Some coaches requested the ability to have more personnel on the bench, especially when the benches do not enter/exit directly. II. New proposals for consideration. Rule Proposal Rationale Notes/Action Overtime Overtime Alter the number of players during overtime to 4-on-4. Extend the overtime period (to be determined how much time). Would reduce ties and create more space for exciting plays in the overtime period; would also be consistent with NHL rules. Would reduce the number of ties. Shootouts Penalty enforcement Consider current rule allowing shootouts by mutual consent; also consider only allowing shootouts for advancement in a regularseason tournament? A player receiving a major penalty with less than five minutes remaining in the third period or any part of overtime would be assessed a game disqualification penalty as Shootouts do not seem to be gaining support with coaches but some conferences have utilized them. The mutual consent/conference policy ability is not consistent nationally which is fine, but we need to be sure the committee is still OK with this. Conference feedback is important here as well. Players who take reckless penalties near or at the end of a game must be penalized for these actions.

5 Video Review: Penalty enforcement Video Review: Penalty enforcement Video Review: Penalty enforcement Video Review: Overall Hand Passes Closing hand on the puck well. In games where video replay is available, game officials may review major penalties POSTGAME to determine if a game misconduct or DQ is appropriate. In games where video replay is available, game officials may review major penalties IMMEDIATELY to determine if a game misconduct or DQ is appropriate. Major penalty would stand regardless (?). In games where video replay is available, conference offices may request a review of an independent panel to consider removing a Game Misconduct or DQ. Need to clean up the rules governing replay now that video replay is in use more often. Key discussion should center on the type of video used (do we care?) and what is allowed to be reviewed as well as what we mean by a play that directly leads to a goal. Review the rule; also consider a point of emphasis that would direct officials to be sure pucks that are batted or deflected do not become hand passes. Discuss our rules here and how they differ from the NHL in a few cases, the NHL rules call for a penalty when closing the hand Allow officials to use technology to appropriately penalize players. Allow officials to use technology to appropriately penalize players. Would allow for an independent review of a penalty to vacate a game misconduct or disqualification through use of video evidence. Will provide a better rule when using video replay. General sense is there are too many hand passes called that are really deflections. Would also eliminate some whistles. Needs review alongside the hand pass rules.

6 Defensive team dislodges net Leaving feet to play the puck Three-quarter shield allowance (men s play only) on the puck (ours is just a violation). Review this rule is it having the intended impact? Team is not allowed to change players. If a player leaves their feet to play the puck, block a shot, etc. it would be a penalty. Potentially could also break this out as a different time penalty (e.g., one minute) to differentiate it from a full power play. To allow a three-quarter shield as a piece of acceptable equipment. Need to fully examine data, etc. Provides some penalty for knocking the net off we also now can award an obvious and imminent goal in these situations, which helps as well. Would open up more shooting lanes and keep players on their feet, as the game was meant to be played. All other levels of ice hockey at this age level (e.g., juniors, Olympics, etc.) allow players to wear a shield. Number of players allowed Stoppage of play off of netting New rule Faceoffs dropping the puck Faceoff locations To allow a maximum of 20 skaters and two or three goalkeepers to dress. Allow play to continue when the puck hits the netting behind the goals. Perhaps a good experimental rule? Allow linesmen to present the puck; current mechanic is to drop the puck from the beltline. All faceoffs will be conducted at one of five locations. Neutral zone dots no longer used. This would align with IIHF rules and would allow more participation of student-athletes. This would eliminate whistles and in general, there is no advantage gained by either team when the puck hits the net and drops to the ice. More in line with mechanics used at the USHL/NHL. Neutral zone faceoffs often include encroachment and most of the time there are not any plays/chances generated markings

7 help officials/players to have a fair drop. Faceoff markings Move the lines further apart for the wingers. Will limit prewhistle contact and will provide some opportunities for spacing/set plays on faceoffs. Faceoffs after non-change situation TV Timeout Protocol Shootouts Shootout/Penalty Shot situations Discuss how to address teams delaying faceoffs to get more rest for players. Should we provide an example of a TV Timeout protocol, along with the situations when a TVTO should not be granted? Assuming we keep shootouts in the book, should we allow one player to take multiple shots? When a goalkeeper dislodges the net in a shootout or penalty shot, what should our rule be? If it is clearly intentional should we award a goal? And if not, should we award another shot? Some leagues are considering different means of penalizing centers/teams that encroach to address this (e.g., moving the offending team s center back instead of removing the player from the FO). Help with consistency nationally. If the purpose of the shootout is to determine a winner, teams should be allowed to use their best players repeatedly, similar to TJ Oshie in the Olympics. Situation has occurred and right now the rule is the same as it is in normal play. Penalty shots Philosophical discussion. Our enforcement of this rule is different compared to the NHL far fewer penalty shots are called. Intermission/pregame protocol Review these and determine if variances, which have been allowed in the past, are appropriate. For example, the DI Men s Rules currently allow for some variance/flexibility feedback was generally positive on 18 minutes. Extending into the

8 Sudden Death Overtime Protocol Uniforms Goal nets Goal nets Goal nets NCAA Championship used 18 minute intermissions, as a tradeoff to reduce the length of TV timeouts and to allow more time to prepare the ice. Should the NCAA protocol allow for a stoppage under 10 minutes for ice maintenance? Currently, NCAA rules are silent on this, but the NHL does this. Make sure the numbers are clear and can be seen for officiating/scouting/etc. Consider mandating that numbers be a solid light colored number on dark sweaters and a solid dark colored number on light colored sweaters. Should NHL nets be referenced as legal? Currently, these meet our specifications, but some institutions believed they were not legal. Should the new NHL goal net specifications become mandatory in the future? The shallow nets could be approved start of the season for DI and for DIII? In NCAA tournament play, is it important that the same net be used for all rounds of the championship? This season, the traditional NCAA nets were used. book would be appropriate. Would provide better ice conditions and a brief timeout for both teams. Eliminates any confusion on numbering and provides manufacturers/teams with clear direction. To clarify our existing rules. These nets will allow more room behind the goals, etc. These nets will allow more room behind the goals, etc.