PAHL Standings

[ANKLEBENDER]

19 minutes ago, Spear and Magic Helmet said:

What is "icing on a penalty kill"? The short-handed team cannot ice the puck? If so, that has been a rule change they were talking about 15+ years ago. Is that just PAHL or is that USA Hockey?

It is USAH Youth rule, so covers all "youth" aka "amature" 18U and below.  However, High-School is not USAH Youth, it is a different division like USAH Adult, USAH Sled, etc... and is exempt from those youth rule changes. All of this is actually stated in the USAH rule-book, but most parents and even coaches don't read it.....another example is an icing error face-off does NOT go to center ice. It is a "last play where the puck is located" situation (attacking zone of team that legally iced the puck, but the official mistakenly blew play dead). This rule was changed around 15 years ago, but every time it happens, some moron in the stands is yelling "center-ice" like they have a clue.

Edited January 23 by ANKLEBENDER

[James Gatz]

1 minute ago, ANKLEBENDER said:

 This rule was changed around 15 years ago, but every time it happens, some moron in the stands is yelling "center-ice" like they have a clue.

I've been that moron, but looked it up after the game and learned something.  

[fafa fohi]

48 minutes ago, stickboy said:

Lots of teams and leagues don’t publish statistics.  Pens Elite doesn’t.  While I think it’s cool for the players and there should be stats posted for PAHL, some are putting too much stock in it regarding  promotion to the next level. No one is getting a look from a reputable scout because of their Tier 2 points published on a website. They get a look by word of mouth on their overall play and character.

PPE stats are accessible via Elite Prospects, just not on their home webpage.  And if you think scouts are not looking at stats then you would be dead wrong.  Look with a grain of salt?  Sure, but they do look at stats.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/team/12789/pittsburgh-penguins-elite-18u/2023-2024?tab=stats

[nemesis8679]

3 hours ago, ANKLEBENDER said:

It is USAH Youth rule, so covers all "youth" aka "amature" 18U and below.  However, High-School is not USAH Youth, it is a different division like USAH Adult, USAH Sled, etc... and is exempt from those youth rule changes. All of this is actually stated in the USAH rule-book, but most parents and even coaches don't read it.....another example is an icing error face-off does NOT go to center ice. It is a "last play where the puck is located" situation (attacking zone of team that legally iced the puck, but the official mistakenly blew play dead). This rule was changed around 15 years ago, but every time it happens, some moron in the stands is yelling "center-ice" like they have a clue.

It's 14u and under, yet PAHL seems to do it at all levels. 

[ANKLEBENDER]

14 minutes ago, nemesis8679 said:

It's 14u and under, yet PAHL seems to do it at all levels. 

It was 14u and under for the last rule book, they added 15U-18U for 2021-2025 rule book... I'm not trying to slight you, but this is another example of people who do not keep up with rule changes or could open the current rule book to get the information.

[ANKLEBENDER]

4 hours ago, James Gatz said:

I've been that moron, but looked it up after the game and learned something.  

My man lol...hopefully more do the same, but I think it is few and far between.

Remember, ACHA/NCAA, JR, Pro all have different rule books w/different rule variations

[Rewster]

6 hours ago, sarampage said:

Unfortunately, the latter two are newer USA Hockey rules and PAHL decided to adopt them, unlike PIHL.  I don't mind the no icing on a penalty kill that much, but the FPPs and auto offsides are ridiculous.

The automatic offsides is the worst rule change/adoption that I can honestly ever remember. Plus, it’s never been changed/modified after it’s clearly become unnecessary. I get it for the younger players who are learning the rules. But, when you’re 14+ years old and understand the rule of offside…it’s frustrating to see an inadvertent deflection barely cross the blue line into the attacking zone only to get called for auto offsides. It’s a waste of time and has ZERO implications on the current flow of the game—EXCEPT—for slowing the game down unnecessarily.

[YardSale]

1 hour ago, Rewster said:

The automatic offsides is the worst rule change/adoption that I can honestly ever remember. Plus, it’s never been changed/modified after it’s clearly become unnecessary. I get it for the younger players who are learning the rules. But, when you’re 14+ years old and understand the rule of offside…it’s frustrating to see an inadvertent deflection barely cross the blue line into the attacking zone only to get called for auto offsides. It’s a waste of time and has ZERO implications on the current flow of the game—EXCEPT—for slowing the game down unnecessarily.

I actually have seen higher level 12u and 14u level players adapt well to it.  I think the puck movement on the neutral zone regroups has been noticeably better.  I do hate the inadvertent puck bounces, but I think the intended outcome has been realized.

[Rewster]

11 minutes ago, YardSale said:

I actually have seen higher level 12u and 14u level players adapt well to it.  I think the puck movement on the neutral zone regroups has been noticeably better.  I do hate the inadvertent puck bounces, but I think the intended outcome has been realized.

I remember when they tried it at the NHL/Professional level and it was resoundingly rejected. It was supposed to speed up the game and increase odd-man rushes…which would have been a 180° turn from the dump-and-chase, left-wing lock that bogged down any odd man breaks and seized up any real scoring opportunities. Sometimes the intent of the rule has the opposite repercussions. In this case, it increased the unnecessary stoppages by having inadvertent offsides and basically did the opposite.

 

At least the NHL recognized it and resolved it the following year.

[YardSale]

12 hours ago, Rewster said:

I remember when they tried it at the NHL/Professional level and it was resoundingly rejected. It was supposed to speed up the game and increase odd-man rushes…which would have been a 180° turn from the dump-and-chase, left-wing lock that bogged down any odd man breaks and seized up any real scoring opportunities. Sometimes the intent of the rule has the opposite repercussions. In this case, it increased the unnecessary stoppages by having inadvertent offsides and basically did the opposite.

 

At least the NHL recognized it and resolved it the following year.

The goal of the rule at the amateur level isn't spectator entertainment value, it is player development.  The D are required to handle the puck more and be more creative with their puck movement rather than just banging the puck back in the zone.  Again, I don't love the extra whistles, but I do see the players adapting and being more creative.

[fafa fohi]

53 minutes ago, YardSale said:

The goal of the rule at the amateur level isn't spectator entertainment value, it is player development.  The D are required to handle the puck more and be more creative with their puck movement rather than just banging the puck back in the zone.  Again, I don't love the extra whistles, but I do see the players adapting and being more creative.

So for a kid that plays at the High School and U18 level, you are good with no icing on a PK for club hockey but aware that for HS hockey it is allowed?

The rule at U18 is a complete joke.  

[YardSale]

6 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

So for a kid that plays at the High School and U18 level, you are good with no icing on a PK for club hockey but aware that for HS hockey it is allowed?

The rule at U18 is a complete joke.  

At no point did I say I was ok with players having to play by 2 different rule sets.  I think it is awful that there are 2 widely different sets of rules and players have to remember which league they are playing that game for as to what is allowed.  I also didn't say anything about 18U.  My point is that the offsides rule for amateur is producing results at the 12U and 14U levels.

[ANKLEBENDER]

I agree, the players have adapted and the higher the skill level you go, the less inadvertant offside calls there are. Some officials try to let an inadvertant offside go when the defending team gets possesion and immediatly brings the puck back out of their zone. 

From what I remember, back when I played in the 90s, USAH elimiated delayed offsides for I want to say 4 years (2 rulebooks at the time). I also remember USAH didn't like a player coming out of the penalty box getting a breakaway chance, so there was a rule that you had to tag your defensive zone 1st, prior to taking a lead pass behind the defense.

Anyway, my guess to why this happened was that in the 2000's, the top defenseman getting drafted to NHL were american born. USAH must have evaulated this and decided to impliment it again 2019-21, but wanted to ease it in starting with 14U and below. USAH Rule Book is now 4 years and it was stated back then that it would change to 18U for the next RB edition in 2021-25 since the kids were exposed to the system. However, there seems to be a consensus that USAH is going back to delayed offsides for the 2025-2029 edition. We will know this summer as you can go online right now and submit rule changes for approval at the summer meeting, since next season is the final year of this RB edition. They do it with a year remaining because they need time to republish the next rule book for 2025-2026 season.

Also, in reguards to "Icing on the penalty kill". This rule change had been discussed for a while at both USAH and NCAA levels. USAH adopted it but NCAA has not, though it may in the near future. The reason behind the USAH change was to also help development and create more offense for both teams. There is also an argument that you should not be allowed to break a rule when you have already broken a rule. USAH did research and found that being allowed to 'ice the puck' while killing a penalty was not an "original" rule and was implimented by the NHL to help teams in the 1930s, because the Montreal Canadians were to good. It was just never changed back when the other teams got more competitive.

I have noticed that it did help skill level and created more offense with more short-handed goals. Kids now forced to gain the red line and catching teams not prepared to defend. Likewise, it helps create powerplay goals since kids get exposed trying to gain the red line. Coaches that still instruct their young players to "ice the puck" are not doing them any justice.

...Wanted to give everyone some insight.

Edited January 24 by ANKLEBENDER

[ANKLEBENDER]

18 minutes ago, YardSale said:

At no point did I say I was ok with players having to play by 2 different rule sets.  I think it is awful that there are 2 widely different sets of rules and players have to remember which league they are playing that game for as to what is allowed.  I also didn't say anything about 18U.  My point is that the offsides rule for amateur is producing results at the 12U and 14U levels.

From what I was told, and this is hearsay, not confirmed. When USAH adoped this, MN High-School Hockey threatened to leave USAH and go AAU, which is why USAH agreed to keep USAH High School exempt from the change.

[Spear and Magic Helmet]

1 hour ago, fafa fohi said:

So for a kid that plays at the High School and U18 level, you are good with no icing on a PK for club hockey but aware that for HS hockey it is allowed?

The rule at U18 is a complete joke.  

Not that this makes it better, but when Junior hockey was really "in vogue" during the mid 2000s, lots of kids played Jr B & C and high school hockey and those are different rule books too... Players adapt.

And I guess technically the explosion of Junior B & C at that time was another adaptation, it was a way to get around split season midget - of the rules that were different, Junior hockey didn't have to abide by the split season agreement.

[hockeyisgreat]

I see PAHL is having a meeting on February 20th.  They are going over rules for next year.  Maybe this would be a good time to ask why they have no Player Stats!  At least for 14U and above.  They use the same platform as PIHL so I see no reason why they couldn't do the same!  Once again the lack of recognition for players in PAHL is very sad!  I see no excuse as to why it isn't being done already.

[James Gatz]

6 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

I see PAHL is having a meeting on February 20th.  They are going over rules for next year.  Maybe this would be a good time to ask why they have no Player Stats!  At least for 14U and above.  They use the same platform as PIHL so I see no reason why they couldn't do the same!  Once again the lack of recognition for players in PAHL is very sad!  I see no excuse as to why it isn't being done already.

Speaking of the next meeting, anyone have any information on the rules changes they will be discussing as related to rostering?  From the Pulse newsletter, "So the Committee has identified a few rules proposals that would need to be discussed prior to tryouts if they are to be implemented for the 2024-25 season, primarily related to eligibility and the composition of team rosters.  Those proposals will be presented at the February 20th membership meeting."  

[James Gatz]

Looks as if PAHL may be re-evaluating the Fair Play Point system.  There is info on some of the new rules proposals on their site.  PAHL Playing Rules Proposals (pahockey.com)

The proposed new rule for goalie rostering seems complicated.  It looks like they are considering limiting a goalie's ability to skate out to 25% of the games.  I suspect this is a non-issue for most of the older age groups.  For Squirts, why 25% and not 50%?  

[fafa fohi]

1 hour ago, James Gatz said:

Looks as if PAHL may be re-evaluating the Fair Play Point system.  There is info on some of the new rules proposals on their site.  PAHL Playing Rules Proposals (pahockey.com)

The proposed new rule for goalie rostering seems complicated.  It looks like they are considering limiting a goalie's ability to skate out to 25% of the games.  I suspect this is a non-issue for most of the older age groups.  For Squirts, why 25% and not 50%?  

To see the dumbest rule in all of youth hockey ( and there are a lot of them ) in the fair play point system potentially going away would be a good thing.  Then they can take another look at ties as there is no OT or shootout which is a joke.

[Zarg]

The girls roster rule preventing girls from playing on 12U and 14U rosters for the same season is a potential huge problem. They even stated in the rational that:  "It is acknowledged that this will likely be a “step backwards” in a few places and therefore could cost us a small number of girls teams.  But the change is deemed necessary and could ultimately lead to long-term improvements."

The PAHL Girls divisions are often only 4/5 teams per division, costing them a "small number of girls teams" may very well make it so they cannot even have a girls division at certain age groups!

[James Gatz]

17 minutes ago, Zarg said:

The girls roster rule preventing girls from playing on 12U and 14U rosters for the same season is a potential huge problem. They even stated in the rational that:  "It is acknowledged that this will likely be a “step backwards” in a few places and therefore could cost us a small number of girls teams.  But the change is deemed necessary and could ultimately lead to long-term improvements."

The PAHL Girls divisions are often only 4/5 teams per division, costing them a "small number of girls teams" may very well make it so they cannot even have a girls division at certain age groups!

This does seem counter-productive.  They say it is to avoid potential litigation.  That fear may be overstated, but wouldn't a better approach be to make all players eligible to double-roster under the old rule for girls?  The old rule includes the limitation that "A maximum of five (5) girls may be double rostered between girls’ teams. Double rostering under this rule must be within a single association and may not cross over to other association girls’ teams."  So, if an associated is limited to just 5 double-rosterings, there won't be a deluge of boys doubling up.  The organizations would have to chose how to use those spots.  Most would likely be used by girls in those organizations fielding girls teams, but if the opportunity were open to all, they could minimize the litigation risk.   

[Icebucket]

4 hours ago, fafa fohi said:

To see the dumbest rule in all of youth hockey ( and there are a lot of them ) in the fair play point system potentially going away would be a good thing.  Then they can take another look at ties as there is no OT or shootout which is a joke.

16 and 18 AA standings are littered with ties.  Multiple teams at each level tied over 25% of their games.

[PUCKCOVID19]

1 hour ago, Icebucket said:

16 and 18 AA standings are littered with ties.  Multiple teams at each level tied over 25% of their games.

thank the curfew clock.  at this level there should be OT AND SHHOT OUTS BEFORE A TIES 

 

[James Gatz]

There is a reference in the proposed rules to evaluating the curfew protocol. No real details given. 
 

 

[fafa fohi]

2 hours ago, PUCKCOVID19 said:

thank the curfew clock.  at this level there should be OT AND SHHOT OUTS BEFORE A TIES 

 

If we need more time for the game to be completed before the curfew clock expires, how about allowing players at 16U AA and 18U AA levels to touch up on off sides and also allow them to ice the puck on the PK.  Less stoppages of play will allow more time for OT or a shootout.

That way we kill two birds with one stone.

Edited February 23 by fafa fohi