Skip to content

Hybrid icing, video review for high-sticking, shallower nets to be introduced

Jun 4, 2013, 6:29 PM EDT

NHL and NHLPA logo

In addition to recommending that visors be made mandatory for all new players, the NHL’s competition committee also made the following recommendations at today’s meetings:

—- Hybrid icing to be tested during the preseason, with the possibility of keeping the new rule for the regular season. (From NHL.com: “Hybrid icing is a mixture of touch and no-touch icing. It gives a linesman the discretion to blow his whistle and stop the play if he believes a defending player will reach the puck first. If the linesman believes the attacking player has a chance to reach the puck first, he keeps his whistle in his pocket and lets the race to the puck play out. The linesman always will side with the defending player and blow his whistle if he feels the race is a tie by the time the players reach the faceoff dots.”)

—- A joint committee to be formed to study potential equipment changes for skaters and goaltenders. (See: here.)

—- The elimination of the ‘attainable pass’ rule on icings, which reads:

The Linesman shall have discretion to wave off apparent icing infractions on attempted passes if those passes are deemed receivable (attainable). In order for the Linesman to wash out the icing for this reason, the receiving player’s stick must be on the attacking side of the center red line and he must be eligible to receive the pass (e.g. he cannot be in an off-side position and cannot be involved in a player change that would result in a too many men on the ice penalty if he were to play the puck).

—- Shallower nets to be introduced for next season (going from 44″ to 40″), allowing more room behind the goal to make plays.

—- All high-sticking double-minor penalties to be subject to video review.

The recommendations are subject to approval by the NHL’s Board of Governors in June.

 

  1. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Jun 4, 2013 at 6:32 PM

    Those all sound like positive improvements. Next up: deal with that puck over the glass penalty (read: get rid of it).

    • killerpgh - Jun 4, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoCHqc7yhA -Am not a fan of over the glass penalty. This Matt Cooke over the play penalty was a crazy one. I would like to see them treat over the glass like a ice call. No line change with a quick face-off.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Jun 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM

      Careful what you wish for, and remember what the rule was designed to combat: defenders deliberately shooting it out of play to ease pressure and avoid icing. It was being used quite a bit and had gotten quite annoying. Perhaps, like killer suggests, treat it like icing with no line change allowed by the miscreant’s team.

  2. dbarnes79 - Jun 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    Just go with automatic icing already!

  3. jimw81 - Jun 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    The highlight of meeting was Ed Snider leaving on the meeting. Something must of piss him off.

    • barkar942 - Jun 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM

      They probably told him he couldn’t buy out Bryz.

  4. travishenryskid - Jun 4, 2013 at 6:49 PM

    Why get rid of the attainable pass rule? Are we trying to slow the game down?

  5. chanceoffleury1 - Jun 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    I’d still like to see a coach’s challenge introduced.

    – Each coach gets 1 per game.
    – They can’t happen in the last 5 minutes of the hockey game. (But CAN happen at the end of first period/second period)

    I’m stuck on is what happens if it’s not successful though. In football it costs you a timeout, but each team only gets one timeout in hockey. Should the rule be that a coach can only challenge if he still has his timeout? Should it be a delay of game penalty instated and a player has to serve 2 minutes?

    • 19to77 - Jun 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM

      I like these caveats – he can use either a timeout or a challenge in a game, not both, and if he uses a challenge and the play is ruled legitimate, there’s a bench delay of game minor assessed. Basically, the coach should be utterly sure the call on the ice is wrong to avoid abusing the challenge.

  6. sjsharks66 - Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM

    Only on a double minor? Where else would the blood come from? Why not on all high stick penalties?

  7. pitpenguinsrulez - Jun 4, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    Automatic icing would be flatout stupid! Honestly people if automatic icing was in effect currently then the Bruins 4th goal on Monday would’ve never happen because it would’ve been blown dead and Rask would’ve never been be able to touch the puck. Scoring opportunities can happen off icing if the team that iced it beats the opposing team to the puck. I’d rather see No-Touch Icing than Automatic Icing.

    So instead of increasing the size of the net infront to increase scoring they decide to decrease the size of the back of the net to help with scoring…*facepalm*…I wonder how that will help?

    • killerpgh - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      What the difference between your “no touch icing” and “automatic” icing? I always thought the were the same thing.

      • pitpenguinsrulez - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:23 PM

        I meant to say Hybird Icing

  8. killerpgh - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:16 PM

    This double minor high sticking review thing could be interesting. So now they can review and issue a double minor on a missed high stick, but still can’t review a play like Torre’s hit on Hossa last year in the playoffs which would have been a 5 minute major and also kicked him out of the game. Makes sense…..

  9. jr507 - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:35 PM

    if I’m reading this right, I’m with travishenryskid- why eliminate the attainable pass rule? all that does is make defensemen more conservative with breakout passes (especially late in shifts) thus eliminating offense.

    Not sure the logic there.

  10. sharkmaster88 - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:43 PM

    They need to revisit and reword the Over the glass rule
    Anybody in the world know these players can handle the puck and can control where it goes 90% of the time!
    It’s the 10% that slip and inadvertently go over the glass should be the same as icing with no line changes
    2 minutes short handed is STUPID

  11. sharkmaster88 - Jun 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM

    Well I see Pittsburg whiners complaining well when one of their guys gets injured racing for the puck on the end boards they will be screaming for rule changes
    End of argument

  12. barkar942 - Jun 4, 2013 at 11:33 PM

    I watched ECHL hockey with the automatic icing rule. Personally I didn’t care for it. Totally ruined the flow to the game at times. The current icing system is obviously potentially very dangerous.
    The prospect of hybrid icing sounds like it could be a good balance between the two.
    Mandatory visors is a good thing (except if you are Carl Hagelin, you just angle it all the way back so it basically isn’t even there to protect your face one bit).
    Before the over the glass rule, any offensive pressure was quickly and unfairly extinguished by any defensive player or goalie just shooting the puck ten rows up over the glass. The rule was necessary to stop the unfairness. Is it unfair when a player just misses the glass and it plops in the stands? I prefer the penalty to a carte blanche, free pass to stop play whenever.
    I have felt that any time a player is bleeding or injured that there should be a review. Many times it is a missed high sticking penalty. Other times, the player is high sticked by their own teammate and penalties are unfairly assessed. It can help correct both issues.

  13. hockeyflow33 - Jun 5, 2013 at 2:56 AM

    Everyone calling for hybrid icing is going to do nothing but rip on the linesmen when they disagree with the call.

  14. matt14gg - Jun 5, 2013 at 6:34 AM

    Only thing I’d like to see is some room for judging intent on the over the glass rule. If it’s not on purpose treat it like icing. If it is intentional make it a penalty.

    • barkar942 - Jun 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      You think that the skilled players could just tweak the puck over the glass on purpose and say Whoops, I slipped? Perhaps if it lands in the first two rows, then it is not a penalty or if it ends up over 13 rows back into the stands and manages to injure a spectator by specifically knocking out their left canine incisor.

  15. kovodisc - Jun 5, 2013 at 8:25 AM

    Personally, I think they should eliminate the “no icing call” for teams on the penalty kill.

    It’s a whistle any other time, yet when a team breaks the rules it lets them break the rules AGAIN with no repurcussions. Makes no sense and would make things a lot more exciting if they removed that rule.

  16. valoisjoeybfeld69 - Jun 6, 2013 at 7:41 AM

    Here’s a look at the shallower net; https://mobile.twitter.com/PR_NHL/status/342037857646563328/photo/1

Top 10 NHL Player Searches