ColbyCosh.com

This means we can get rid of the ridiculous rules restricting goalies from playing the puck behind the goal line, right? HUGE bonus.

This isn't an entirely bad idea. What we've seen over the last 80 years in hockey is the gradual move away from the onside game that had gained ascendancy once the rugby players (and the Montreal Rules) took over. Icing is one of that small remaining cluster of rules that limits the off-side nature of the game.

However, one effect of this will be to make it easier for teams to defend leads, and make the ends of games less exciting. But they should try it out at a minor pro level for a while to see the effect.

I think it should go the other way - they should call icing on powerplays to make them more lethal (from goal-scoring standpoint). No icing would kill the game's offensive side.

And while they are at it they should allow teams to score more than once on 2 minute powerplays.

I liked the idea of doing away with icing, but I agree with Tybalt that it could turn out to be the Kevin Martin "get a lead and then destroy all guards" curling strategy that resulted in the three-rock rule. No icing might just result in reverse dump and chase.

Reaugh's idea is a bad one. Modern players are so big and fast and so well-coached in defensive systems that some teams can practically stop a game from breaking out; they try to shut 'er down and then count on one or two mistakes per game from the offensively-minded teams. Why make that worse? If an offensively unskilled team just needed to get a stick on the puck and whack it down the ice and then go fight for it 50/50 there, why would they bother to take the risk of trying to string five or six passes together -- i.e. playing hockey -- to get to the same place?

Under the current rules icing is already the equivalent of being allowed to hit a tennis ball into the stands to avoid losing a tough point, or climbing outside the boxing ring and running around the apron when your opponent is doing better than you.

There has to be some sort of proscription against putting the puck out of play -- which is what icing is, let's face it. I'm in favour of no-touch icing, with a minor penalty for, say, the fifth icing in any period.

Interesting idea, but I don't think you'd be eliminating the chance of injury from the all-out chase for the puck you see now - you'd still have chases for the puck under a "no icing" rule if the goalie decided not to play the puck for whatever reason.

I'm in favour of keeping touch icing (boo hoo wah a couple guys got hurt, it's not ladies' softball for Christ's sake), but if it has to be fixed I'm definitely against the combination we had before of letting goalies come out to play the puck but protecting them fanatically with hair-trigger interference penalties. So on balance I'm against Reaugh here (and it's hardly a surprise that a Stars broadcaster would suggest a policy that favours an adventurous goalie who likes to take preposterous dives).

The NFL isn't a ladies' softball league either, but they outlawed horse-collar tackles because they often led to similar catastrophic injuries.

I don't think many fans would say that the quality of play has suffered for it.

All of a sudden, Milbury's decision to keep DiPietro over Luongo makes sense... Shudder...

It'll never happen, though. Coaches like Vigneault and Lemaire would turn the game into 5-man tennis matches. Heck, there might even be entertainment value in that!

I'm definitely against the combination we had before of letting goalies come out to play the puck but protecting them fanatically with hair-trigger interference penalties

Never understood that in the first place. 90% of the time when a goalie got genuinely creamed under the old rules it was actually boarding or charging - they had the tools to protect the goalies and didn't use them. I agree, Colby - when a goalie comes out of his crease, he's a player and should be treated as such.

The NFL isn't a ladies' softball league either, but they outlawed horse-collar tackles because they often led to similar catastrophic injuries.
I don't think many fans would say that the quality of play has suffered for it.

Then how is it relevant? No one's against safety changes that don't affect the attractiveness of the game. The race to the iced puck is exciting, especially when some fast young guy is putting an old-timer to the test 50 minutes in. And injuries on the play aren't that common.

I guess I just don't agree that this particular play is relevant enough as to "affect the attractiveness of the game".

My solution, and many hybrids have been tried and proposed in other leagues, would have the linesman immediately wave-off the icing call if there was a reasonable chance(chasing player could be several strides behind) that an offensive player could retrieve the puck. That way both players could more naturally proceed into position like they would for any loose puck in the corner, instead of recklessly putting all their effort into a race to touch it.

I do have three bias's on this topic:

1. I have two screws in my ankle from a full speed end-boards collision when I was sixteen.

3. Kurtis Foster was a fixture in our high school cafeteria euchre game, and was a really nice guy.

2. I make a point of never being on the same side of a hockey argument with Damien Cox.