No-Touch Icing

I know that no-touch icing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icing_(ice_hockey) was instituted in the NHL (and other leagues) as a measure to reduce injuries, but the unintended side effect, in my opinion, is that it rewards lazy skaters and teams.

Supposedly, no-touch icing was sold as a way to speed up games. But it doesn't, and the linesmen still have to skate the length of the rink to get the puck, plus there's the stoppage of play.

Injuries occur in a lot of games, and if the leagues were really concerned about injuries, they do something about head injuries. The no-touch icing is little threat to those, the most being leg or ankle injuries from racing into the boards.

I could probably stomach the no-touch icing if it were waived off if it was clear that the defenceman could've gotten the puck or even stopped it, but intentionally allowed it to go by so that icing would occur. In this instance, it seems to me that this is an intentional stoppage of play, similar in action (and certainly the result) of a goalie sending the puck over the glass. It stops the play, and to avoid this, a penalty is dealt to the goalie to stop this stoppage. Intentionally allowing the puck to get by, is just as wrong and certainly sucks the life out of a game, as a goalie knocking the puck over the glass to stop the play and interrupt a possible scoring opportunity.

I have seen the reaction by a number of fans, and we all agree that even though the intentions of the rule were noble, that the practice of no-touch icing has sucked the life and excitement out of hockey games, and it rewards lazy defencemen and lazy teams in general.

In my opinion, if the puck is fired to the opposite end of the ice, and the offensive skater is fast enough to get by the defenceman and beat him to the puck, then he deserves the scoring opportunity.