Leaderboard

As I have said above, the positions of those who support the rule change are well-reasoned. I don't think this rule change is cataclysmic, but I have the following reasons for disagreeing with it, some of which are good ones and some of which are not as good. In no particular order: There is no justification for allowing delayed offsides at the high school level but not allowing amateur players of that age delayed offsides. Let's all play the same game. While I agree that highly skilled players can perform a regroup and retain possession of the puck, @GrumpyOldPucker noted that the Russians tortured opponents with their regroups. Even their most skilled opponents couldn't do regroups like the Russians. Just because Makharov and Kharlomov could do this, should we expect all players to be able to? I don't know if I am on board with that. You do different sorts of regroups if Letang and Dumoulin are on the ice than if it's Ruhwedel and Maata. Coaches are free to coach their players to regroup in the neutral zone, and in this argument thereby dominate opponents at will, if they like, whether delayed offsides exists or not. I fail to see how removing an option from the game enhances creativity. It just requires everyone to play the game one particular way at all times. If coaches saw a huge advantage to the Russian style regroups, more teams would be playing that style now, even before the rule change. The fact that you don't see it being played that way already tells you something. We can, of course ,debate whether the coaches are correct in their perceptions here, but kids regrouped rather than dump the puck all the way through peewee under the old system because they didn't have delayed offsides, so coaching bantams to do it would have been trivial if a coach saw a way to gain a competitive advantage. Games I have watched this season have taken longer, and flowed less well, than they did last season. That may well - probably will - change as teams get used to the new rules. I'm not saying that hockey is better when players dump the puck rather than trying to do something more possession-oriented in the neutral zone, or even further back. I am saying that removing that option doesn't make the game better in my opinion, because there are isolated and possibly rare situations where dumping a puck makes sense. Again, maybe most or all of these concerns are going to lessen as players get used to this new rule. Maybe my biggest objection to this change is that touch-up offsides is just how hockey is played in my book, as a lifelong fan. But my first bullet is not going to fade away - if touch up offsides is bad for player development and bad for the game, why permit it at any level, or allow players to do it with their HS teams but not their amateur teams? The rules should be the same for everyone. Finally, for the record I think that not permitting a team on the PK is not a huge change. Although it can make it harder for the defending team to change (especially in the second period), in the games I have watched this season this rule change hasn't really been an issue. The kids have been aware of the the rule at HS and at amateur and generally acted appropriately. I still believe, though, that the rules should be the same for HS hockey as for amateur.

Subjective question, depends on how you measure it. I would say, however, that a program that does not have mites, LTS, LTP, has no choice but to take players from the programs who do.

They also played on a much larger ice surface that complimented possession.