Question About NHL's Icing Rules

[kingssss]

Okay, here's what happened: The Kings were leading the Avs 4-3 in the 3rd period in the game earlier tonight with about 1 minute left. Aebischer was pulled for Colorado about 30 seconds before, so the Avs are 6 on 5. Now, Jow Sakic dumps the puck into the Kings' zone and it's called for icing. The faceoff comes back into the Avs' zone, and Colorado brings Aebischer back into the net. They drop the puck, and play continues. So, on the drive home, I was listening to Kings' Talk on the radio, and the first caller calls in from his car phone. He asks that if the NHL says that a team cannot make any substitions if they are called for icing, and Colorado had those 6 guys on the ice, then why were they allowed to bring Aebischer back in? I looked for the NHL rulebook on NHL.com and found this, but this only says they can replace a goalie with another player, and not a player with a goalie:

(NEW for 2005-06) Any team that is in violation of this Rule shall not be permitted to make any player substitutions prior to the ensuing face-off. However, a team in violation of this Rule shall be permitted to make a player substitution in order to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker.

(NOTE) A team in violation of this Rule shall be permitted to make a player substitution in order to replace an injured player.

The Kings' commentators didn't know the answer to this, so I was just wonder if anyone knows the answer to this.

(P.S. I just wanted to add that it was really funny tonight because Demitra got a hattrick, and it was hat giveaway night. It was amazing.)

[ColeJ]

maybe i'm just tired, but doesn't this answer the question?

"a team in violation of this Rule shall be permitted to make a player substitution in order to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker."

they replaced their goalie, who had been substituted for an extra attacker... right?

or am i misunderstanding?

[Stampman]

maybe i'm just tired, but doesn't this answer the question?

"a team in violation of this Rule shall be permitted to make a player substitution in order to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker."

they replaced their goalie, who had been substituted for an extra attacker... right?

or am i misunderstanding?

Makes sense to me...

[NJTank]

Ohh that would be fun a face off in a zone without a goalie would really put pressure on the face off.

[Suigi]

I think the new icing rules are the key contributor to the improved offensive flow in the game.

Now, the strategic use of icing to get fresh players on the ice, run down the clock, and add extra commercial breaks to the game is nullified, and teams actually have to PLAY for most of the 60 minutes.

[ColeJ]

I think the new icing rules are the key contributor to the improved offensive flow in the game.

Now, the strategic use of icing to get fresh players on the ice, run down the clock, and add extra commercial breaks to the game is nullified, and teams actually have to PLAY for most of the 60 minutes.

improved offensive flow?!

if anything, the flow of the NHL has disappeared, imo.

the key contributor to the LACK of flow, and the key contributor to the increased scoring, is the parade to the penalty box.

[wheateater]

I think the new icing rules are the key contributor to the improved offensive flow in the game.

Now, the strategic use of icing to get fresh players on the ice, run down the clock, and add extra commercial breaks to the game is nullified, and teams actually have to PLAY for most of the 60 minutes.

improved offensive flow?!

if anything, the flow of the NHL has disappeared, imo.

the key contributor to the LACK of flow, and the key contributor to the increased scoring, is the parade to the penalty box.

And that's a bad thing?

[jkrdevil]

I think the new icing rules are the key contributor to the improved offensive flow in the game.

Now, the strategic use of icing to get fresh players on the ice, run down the clock, and add extra commercial breaks to the game is nullified, and teams actually have to PLAY for most of the 60 minutes.

improved offensive flow?!

if anything, the flow of the NHL has disappeared, imo.

the key contributor to the LACK of flow, and the key contributor to the increased scoring, is the parade to the penalty box.

And that's a bad thing?

Yes, it is. Too many penalties slows the game up. It's about flow not scoring. There is nothing better that a 1-0 game with great flow. Also, I think the game needs to get more physical, it's the physicality, especially come playoff time, that creates intense games which are exciting.

[ColeJ]

I think the new icing rules are the key contributor to the improved offensive flow in the game.

Now, the strategic use of icing to get fresh players on the ice, run down the clock, and add extra commercial breaks to the game is nullified, and teams actually have to PLAY for most of the 60 minutes.

improved offensive flow?!

if anything, the flow of the NHL has disappeared, imo.

the key contributor to the LACK of flow, and the key contributor to the increased scoring, is the parade to the penalty box.

And that's a bad thing?

well, it all depends...

if you just want high scores for the sake of seeing bigger numbers on sportscenter, then i suppose it's great.

but if you're watching a hockey game, and it's nothing but a special teams contest, some may see that as a problem.

increased scoring isn't a bad thing... but artificially inflated scores ARE.

[Phil]

But if they cut down on the penalties, the clutching and grabbing will return, and then we're back to square one, albeit with smaller goalie pads (and as a result, more crappy goals that trickle in).

If the penalties are a result of the crackdown on obstruction, then I'm all for them. Besides, power plays are entertaining, and even beyond that, the hockey has been more entertaining since its return.

[zer0dotcom]

I'll agree with that Syphi, the games have been way more watchable, and it is more exciting. When I get together witht he guys, we don't drift off during the second period to play poker or do stupid stuff, we stay and watch.

Yeah, there are alot of penalties, no doubt. It's going to take some time for the players to adjust tot he new rules. If they do something that is against the rules, they should get called for it, irregardless of the number already called that game or for that team. If they start to lose because of the number of PP goals they give up, then they better stay out of the box.

Its not bogged down completely, there have been several games I've watched where there are 4 minute spans between whistles at times. It's nice to have a full minute pass without a two-line pass called or something. I want to see shots on goal and opertunities to score goals, and we have that this year. The NHL just needs to stick to its guns with these rules and not puss out