Thread: Return of the two-line pass?

...Under the current icing rule, players race for the puck all the way to the end boards, leading to collisions and potentially catastrophic injuries. Under the hybrid icing rule, players would race to an imaginary line at the faceoff dots. If the defensive player wins, the play is blown dead. If the offensive player wins, the play stays alive....

so, it will be up to the linesman to interpret the "imaginary line"??? there is an inherent risk of injury and/or death when playing contact sports (hell, in everyday life for that matter). i don't like this trend of the pussification of professional contact sports. :: zipping up flame suit::

Idk why I mistaken the hybrid for the touch-up icing but that's what I was referring to earlier. I'd rather see that in place of the traditional icing imo..

I think hybrid icing is totally useless to prevent injuries
Here's my thought process:
Most icing injuries come from
1) jackass who know's he's going to lose the race slamming defender into the boards (no talent ass clowns causing injury, its not icing thats the problem here)
2) player losing an edge close to the boards (proximity to the boards is a legitimate concern)

Hybrid scenario at the face off dot requires a footrace that if the defender gets there first a whistle blows
1) Both players will still be racing against each other on a track to the puck, because if the whistle doesn't go they will need to play it. By the time the whistle blows or doesn't blow you're now still relying on both players to respect each other enough to know that the whistle will or won't blow and not resort to douchebaggery
2) Lost edges in a race are still going to happen if the forward player gets there first. So this may or may not improve a low percentage happening where the results are catastrophic.
3) Weird new results where a forward/defensive player can keep a play alive/kill it by not taking a line to the puck but instead a line to the "line" to keep the play alive (or vice versa).

Lets just cut the crap and admit that if these plays are really that dangerous they should go ahead and call the automatic icing. If it's the same level of danger as everything else associated with the game youdon't need to fool with it, you need to punish the a-holes to the level where there is no incentive to make a dirty play.

Originally Posted by drums4dmf

On top of everything else I think the officials can lay off their whistle as well. Let these guys play the game. Too many ticky tack penalties called night in and night out...

Penalties are down considerably and scoring is quickly approaching levels which existed prior to the new rules being instituted. You are getting your wish. Unfortunately, legitimate penalties are also being let go.

Penguins unhappy with increased obstruction, decreased power plays - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Penalties are down considerably and scoring is quickly approaching levels which existed prior to the new rules being instituted. You are getting your wish. Unfortunately, legitimate penalties are also being let go.

Penguins unhappy with increased obstruction, decreased power plays - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yup, all types off stuff that was being called after the lockout is now creeping back into the game. Either the league put out a memorandum or the refs just forgot. The obstruction is back yet the concussions are still as common as they ever were. I wish they would go back to calling all that crap.

Originally Posted by jammer06

I think hybrid icing is totally useless to prevent injuries
Here's my thought process:
Most icing injuries come from
1) jackass who know's he's going to lose the race slamming defender into the boards (no talent ass clowns causing injury, its not icing thats the problem here)
2) player losing an edge close to the boards (proximity to the boards is a legitimate concern)

Hybrid scenario at the face off dot requires a footrace that if the defender gets there first a whistle blows
1) Both players will still be racing against each other on a track to the puck, because if the whistle doesn't go they will need to play it. By the time the whistle blows or doesn't blow you're now still relying on both players to respect each other enough to know that the whistle will or won't blow and not resort to douchebaggery
2) Lost edges in a race are still going to happen if the forward player gets there first. So this may or may not improve a low percentage happening where the results are catastrophic.
3) Weird new results where a forward/defensive player can keep a play alive/kill it by not taking a line to the puck but instead a line to the "line" to keep the play alive (or vice versa).

Lets just cut the crap and admit that if these plays are really that dangerous they should go ahead and call the automatic icing. If it's the same level of danger as everything else associated with the game youdon't need to fool with it, you need to punish the a-holes to the level where there is no incentive to make a dirty play.

This is the exact thing that I was wondering. They want to prevent injuries on icing calls but they want to keep the race for the puck. Well isn't that when injuries occur? It doesn't make sense.