Is Touch Icing Or No-Touch Icing Best for the NHL?

A lot of controversy surrounds the rule of touch icing. Although it does bring excitement to the game, with two players rushing down the ice to get the puck, would it be so bad to have no-touch icing?

Many injuries come from this every year. Kurtis Foster of the Minnesota Wild may have an opinion on it. After racing down the ice after the puck in a game last season in San Jose, Foster was tripped and slammed in to the boards breaking his left leg.

Foster is still rehabbing his leg after his March 20 injury, and he is still at least two months away from returning.

This just one of many incidents that happened over the season. Patrice Bergeron was absolutely plastered in to the boards from behind by Flyers defenseman Randy Jones.

After the hit, Bergeron collapsed to the ice, losing consciousness. The Boston Bruins forward suffered a broken cheek bone and a major concussion.

Bergeron missed the entire season but was cleared for the 2008 playoffs.

Randy Jones on the other hand only received a five-minute major.

So which would you rather see? Touch icing or no-touch icing?

Personally, I like the touch icing. It's been in the game forever, and there is just too many rule changes these days. After a while, the game is just going to be messed up so much that no one will watch.

Taking out the red line was good. Restricting the goalies so they cant play the puck? That’s just plan stupid. Plus, they keep messing with the goalie gear.

Has it ever occurred to the NHL that its not that the gear is too big but the goalies are actually that good? Yeah, imagine that: an NHL goalie who can stop the puck. Wow, I guess that’s just plain wrong these days.

Anyways I hope I get plenty of people’s opinion’s on this. So where does your vote stand touch or no-touch?         

Branden Leeman

July 23, 2008

11:34 am    

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?