Viewpoint

Foolish. Just do it. It will speed up the game. Besides, most icings are waived off now anyways - its not like there is a lot of instences where the icing is negated by the offending teams player winning the race!

Of course this was decided by guys who sign Gerber to 3 mil + to sit on the bench and no show Yashin to crazy money as well!

Dummies better start listening to thier CUSTOMERS!

No touch icing has never been an issue when watching the Canadian Juniors play, and personally I think that is the best and most exciting hockey. I have never stop once to think "wow this no-touch icing is sure slowing down this fast paced juniors game". I've also never been to a game where people have overly excited or enthused to watch a puck race, if anything you grimace at a close one hoping your teams player doesn't get hurt. A puck race rarely happens too many times in a game, when was the last time you got excited to see a player slow up and leisurely skate to the puck just to hear the icing whistle, THAT is a waste of time and slows down the game, not to mention boring. How many times during a game to you call out 'icing' and then have to wait 5-10 seconds for the whistle and the next play to start.

If anyone remembers a game where a player has one the foot race resulting in a goal, I'd sure love to see it. Most of the time if you do happen to win the race, the rest of the team is changing. It works for the juniors, we adopted the tag up offside which contributes so much to the great speed and flow of the World Juniors (the best hockey to watch!), the next logical move is no touch icing.

NHL is not sport, it is business.
A recent poll showed 73% of 'fans' want fighting to remain part of the game. If no touch icing detracts from excitement, touch icing wins out.
Two line passes should not be allowed, including during penalties. Make penalties a real detriment to a teem, there will be less penalties. What excitement would that be?
The NHL is pseudo sport, on the level of WWF. That is what most fans want, that is what they will get. If players are injured, so be it. As long as the NHL makes money.

No-touch icing is overdue to make it's NHL debut. The injuries are absolutely preventable, and for the league and GMs especially to disregard them is pretty insulting to the players. I rarely see a scoring chance result from a icing race, let alone an actual goal. Make it automatic, the team that iced it can't change lines, and let's move on already! Plenty of bigger problems for this league to address...

A penalty for icing would do two things.Reduce injuries and speed up the game so it should be a no brainer for the NHL brain trust.
Hate to be here but I am on side with Cherry on this one.Even a stoped clock is right once a day!

Why don't we just eliminate icing all together? I mean that would really speed the game up, aswell as causing more offensive opprutunities, I mean the game has already been changed to create more goals and excitment hasen't it?... personally i dont really think icing related injuries are an enormous problem but you would have virtually the same amount of injuries but far more excitment and goal scoring. Agree? Disagree?

I cannot understand why anyone would want to keep such a foolish rule in the game. One of the best features of international hockey is that icings are automatical and the face offs are quick, both of which increase the pace of the game. The shorter rest (in combination with the rule that teams that ice the puck cannot change players) can act as a deterrent to icing. Having seen games where teams repeatedly iced the puck to preserve a lead, I would actually go so far as to suggest teams committing a certain number of icings be penalized.

How the NHL thinks fans enjoy watching the puck being dumped the length of the ice is beyond me. And as Don Cherry has rightly pointed out it causes unnecessary injuries.

All I keep reading is that people are afraid players are going to get injured. If you've ever played hockey or watched any number of seasons of hockey you realize one thing--it's a gritty, tough sport. If you can't dig hard to fight for a puck, don't play. This is just one of a number of ways any player could get hurt. Should we take away checking and open ice hits? Sure, plays are dangerous and no one wants to see anyone get hurt, but this isn't broomball with 50 year olds. This is the NHL. If GM's are concerned about slowing the game down, how about changing the 300 times a game I see the same commercial during all the breaks. Adding a shootout is bad enough, now we want to take out an opportunity for a great play? Maybe modify it, but don't take it out. Hustle, work hard, and you will be rewarded. Show me some stats on injuries in all facets of the game and maybe I could change my mind if the percentage is high enough. Until then, stop complaining, it's the playoffs!

How about no-touch icing if it's iced from inside the blue line, touch icing if it's only iced from behind centre? Combine that with no contact in the race?

I am a fan of no touch iceing. Sure it isn't very exciting, but it's that one time a d-man looses the race and there is a turnover that makes it exciting. However too many players are being hurt, this opens up the door for new players to come up and play, who don't deserve to be there. If no touch iceing does come in perhaps they should look at making iceing from behind your own blueline.

It is stupid to think that there should be a penalty for iceing the puck (i like the no change rule), and i fail to see how iceing the puck could result in a "Judgement" call by the official, the player touches it first or he doesn't.

I'm a big fan of touch iceing, sure most of the time it isn't exciting, but it's that one time a player looses the race and turns over the puck that makes it so exciting. A lot of players are getting injured, opening up the door for people to play in the NHL, who don't desrve to be there. A suggestion i have would be to have no touch iceing, but iceing be from behind your blue line. This may also eliminate any kind of a neutral zone trap.

i think the nhl needs to worry more about the cheap hits from behind like when chris simon got hit or when david moss got hit against colorado. but once in awhile a guy gets hurt fighting and its a big deal. i also think the games should be cut down the nhl players are not resting their bodies because of the short offseason and they want to be faster. that could be a reason they are getting injured and caroline and edmonton did so poorly.

This debate is just so absurd! I've never heard anyone say to me " hey did you see that race for the puck last night on the icing call?". I watch the juniors every year and the auto icing doeasn't effect the entertainment value of the game. The owners don't like "outsiders" telling them what to do or else automatic icing would be in place. The players should have the unltimate say. A simple vote either for or against should be respected by the owners, after all....their not the ones racing for the puck!

i'm surprised management isn't more proactive about their assets[the players]auto icing would in no way diminish the excitement except for those who like seeing unneccesary injuries.
for the same reason,hardshell shoulder/elbow pads should also be banned.for an opposing view check out what colon cambell said in his interview with ron mcclain.

i don't see how automatic icings would slow down the game.those against it probably also watch car races for the crashes.i think the inability to get the change done is a reflection on the lawyering up of hockey management.the same can be said for the refusal to get rid of hardshell upper body pads[shoulder and elbow]colon cambell said"think of the manufacturers".wrong answer,but it says a mouthful about attitudes regarding the priorities of those who should know better.

I don't see the excitement in racing for the puck. I actually cringe when I see it. Players trying to get position, players trying a dirty move create more of a danger than any excitement.

Gary Lambert has a great idea, this way if you ice the puck the opposing team has a chance to set up a break out up the ice. The team that ices the puck should not be allowed to change its players.

Oh yea, the most part of a hockey game [note sarcasm] is waiting for the puck races as you cringe wondering who will break their neck due to some intentional slew-foot meant to injure. I'm confused as to why the GMs and league are so insistent on keeping this rule. Get rid of it - and penalize the team that ices the puck by not allowing them a line change during the stoppage, or during the icing.

The game will be just fine with no-touch icing .
It's a no-brainer . Let the players vote for it.
Same with fighting . Let the players vote for
it. Get rid of invisible penalty calls and no
touch icing . Too much pressure on the D-men
going back . Give them a break. I watched a
great WHL game 7 of Calgary vs Kootenay , and
the no-touch icing took nothing away from the
game. We should not be going to Paul Maurice
for advice.

I'm used to no touch icing watching the WHL, so it doesn't bother me. Teams who ice the puck are already penalized by having the face off in their end, why should they send a man to the box as well. Eliminating fighting, however,would subtract more fans from the game than it would increase fan support. If they eliminate fighting, what's next, checking?

1. Prucha should have gotten a suspension
2. The suspensions should get bigger each time someone does something dangerous.
3. I don't see why no touch has to reduce the pace, as long as the refs keep waving off icing, if they think the players could have got to the puck, if they had tried. If anything, it eliminates the wait for the player to get to the puck to touch it up. The other thing it eliminates is the need to touch the puck first - not sure whether that is good or bad. Needing to touch first encourages players to put themselves off balance to reach for the puck, whereas not having to touch first, means that the second guy in can simply concentrate on crushing the first (on the other hand that is what already happens when icing is waved off). I wouldn't be opposed to trying out Paul Maurice's idea, but I'm still inclined to think that Cherry has it right.

Not only is touch icing dangerous it's not even exciting; plus, we can eliminate the necessity of officials making judgment calls by having no touch icing.

We could introduce a penalty to the team who ices the puck -kinda like the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass. After all, don't they both delay the game equally?

We've introduced shoot outs to decide games. Aren't they exciting? Isn't it great that a team's entire season could come down to a shoot out? What about any time there is a no touch icing, the puck is placed at centre ice and the players can race toward it. They could even have a corporate sponsor for the race! Oh wouldn't Bettman be proud?!
The truth of the matter is that no touch icing would hardly slow the game down. Furthermore, the race to get the iced puck is only just as exciting to watch as any other part of the game (alright, it's more exciting than the commercial breaks); indeed it is rare that an offensive opportunity results.

I think that Rudy Strauss, above, has a wonderful idea. For that reason alone, it won't work.

It strikes me as odd that the NHL, which so wants to protect its players that it is willing to take fighting out of the game, will not consider no-touch icing. I'm firmly in Cherry's camp on this one. It's not an overly exciting play, and I'd rather watch two more icings per game than have a twenty minute break while a stretcher comes out on the ice. Somebody needs to point out the hypocracy of saying that you are protecting players by taking out fighting, but not by putting in no touch icing. Why not link the two? Ultimately, they're about the same thing.

How about no whistle.The team icing the puck must stay on their side of the center ice red line and the other team picks up the pck from their end of the ice and in effect has a three man [forwards]rush .There could be no slacking on the team retrieving the puck.Less whistles faster game

Simple, if shooting the puck over the glass is a delay of game then so should icing ,fewer icings fewer injuries.

I agree whole heartedly with Rudy and the premise that no touch icing would slow down a game. What hogwash, they only have three to five icings a game and a no touch rule WOULD save players careers. If you want a faster game and a more interesting product eliminate the commercials in the middle of a game which I call BETTMAN HOCKEY a true disgrace to the game. I last evnin gMontreal vs Rangers game they broke for five commercials with 2 minutes remainng. And they wonder why audiences are turning away!!!

This is just another example of the old school GM's of the NHL being reactive vice proactive on an important decision. They keep spouting off about the players being the game's best resource but they leave an idiotic rule like this in the game. Unfortunatley, it is going to take a high profile player getting paralyzed or worse before this rule will change and that is sad.
Have another freaking donut...

Re Paul Maurice's suggestion
If a player bumps another player while racing for the puck, then he automatically loses the call whether he makes it there first or not. Thus if a defenceman coming back bumps the forward, the linesman would immediately waive off icing. Similarly if the forward bumps the defenceman then the linesman would blow the play dead as soon as the puck crosses the goal line.

Isn't the game exciting enough without the occasional chase for an iced puck? How many are there in a game, anyway? About as many, I would guess, as the several time outs each period for which the TV cuts away for 4 or 5 commercials. Doesn't that slow the game down? Not drastically, though, the same as it would be for no touch icing. But, here's a good solution: Whenver there's a no touch icing called, cut away for a commercial. Make some monehy for the league, they would love it. And, the action would continue when they come back from the break. We fans would love that, and our players would not be subject to a potential injury every time they race down ice for the touch.

I think Coach Maurice has hit it on the head! Or in the case of his injured player... right on the knee cap!

Make it a penalty to touch or check during an icing race and let the officials figure out the incidentals. You can't deny that in the NHL, with the speed and size of these players, it's exciting as hell to watch the race for the puck and see if our side can make it or not etc.

I get to see alot of London Knights games and at the OHL level with their no-touch icing, something is missing from the game.

So why not work on Pauls idea? It just might be a step in the right direction at least! Better than having players ending careers after only 3 or 4 seasons into them, right?

The races for the puck are not THAT exciting. Even when the player from the team icing the puck retrieves it, usually his teammates are changing and he's on his own, behind the net, against two defensemen. Whereas the icing call procudes an offensive zone faceoff for the other team, against a line that couldn't change - usually a play that is much more productive and exciting.

The few seconds wasted each time a player skates back should add up to over half a minute per game of actual hockey. It could possibly reduce the number of icing calls as well, if teams knew there was no way they could nullify the call.

Those reasons alone should be enough to seriously consider no-touch icing. The fact that players occasionally get seriously hurt racing to decide whether a more exciting play will happen makes it seem like a no-brainer.

But other seemingly "no-brainer" decisions include:
- not extending Bettman's contract
- addressing/disciplining headshots
- changing the schedule
...so the GM's decision on icing doesn't surprise me.