Do you think the NHL should institute no-touch icing?
	No	17 (57 percent)
	Yes	13 (43 percent)

Anaheim: Fredrik Olausson - Yes
"That's a good question. Among other things, I think they should. There probably would be a couple more whistles. It probably would prolong the games a little bit, but I don't see that having a huge effect. I know a lot of people probably would complain it's going to hurt the forecheck, being able to get goals and all that, but the way hockey has been going, there might be a safety issue. Among other things, I think they should take away the red line as well, either take away the red line or make the neutral zone bigger. That would open up the game a little bit. I think it would benefit the game."

Atlanta: Marc Savard - No
"No. The way it is fine. We've already tinkered with the game enough. To put in no-touch icing would be an unnecessary change."

	Subscribe at thehockeynews.com.

Boston: Sean O'Donnell - No
"No. I like it the way it is. You do get every now and then an injury for that, but it happens once every I don't know how often for the amount of times there is an icing. I like it the way it is. I think it speeds up the game. Otherwise, you'd have a lot more whistles."

Buffalo: Adam Mair - No
"I think I'd rather see the icing remain the same. I'm kind of a purist. I like the way the game has been for so long. I don't agree with a lot of the rule changes. They're trying to change the game that molded young Canadians for a lot of years. It's the least area the league has to focus in on."

Calgary: Bob Boughner - Yes
"As a defenseman, I think it would save us a lot of energy for one and it would save a lot of injuries for two. In the AHL, I almost broke my ankle -- I was out three months -- because of touch-icing. I think it would be an important thing to put in."

Carolina: Jesse Boulerice - No
"I don't think so. you can make plays from the far blue line, just inside your zone, and the winger on the other side can cancel it out. You're using it strategically.

Chicago: Anonymous - No

Colorado: Peter Forsberg - No
"No, I think it would make the games a lot longer."

Columbus: Mike Sillinger - No
"I think it's OK the way it is, but I'm a forward. Ask a defenseman. Ask the guys who are going back there, chasing after the puck and see what they say. I'm sure they have a different opinion than mine."

Dallas: Rob DiMaio - No

Detroit: Nicklas Lidstrom - No
"No. I prefer the way we have it now, even though you have to get back and touch the puck. I think ... we play that in Europe, and you use the red line a lot more to your advantage. I think on the more narrow rink we have here, it's going to clog up the neutral zone even more than it is now. I prefer you can shoot it down, have the guys chase it."

Edmonton: Anonymous - Yes
"I think a lot of defensemen feel the same way. A lot of times, especially now that you can't hold up their forwards because of the obstruction calls, we're getting run pretty good."

Florida: Ivan Majesky - No
"Keep it the same as it is."

Minnesota: Jason Marshall - No
"I don't see it being a problem. It's a fair play, the race for the puck. Players going back there respect each other -- usually."

Los Angeles: Anonymous - Yes

Montreal: Mike Komisarek - Yes
"It hasn't really been an issue for me here yet. I guess the biggest thing is guys going back and having a collision while touching up the puck and getting hurt. And as a defenseman, it would make things easier for us back there. With any rule, players seem to bend it a little. As a defenseman, if a guy clears the puck out of their zone you might not try to get in front of it and just let it go by you. I know that's one of the things in college, instead of trying to make a diving play to stop it or keep it in the zone, you just let it go by knowing that the faceoff is going to be in their zone because you don't have to touch it up."

Nashville: Cale Hulse - Yes
"I think, being a defenseman, it's one of the worst places for me. You can really get tangled up. They should at least try it in the preseason ... I hope there will not be a time that the decision is made because somebody was seriously hurt."

New Jersey: Ken Daneyko - Yes
"Yes. The theory behind it is to cut down on injuries. There are two sides, of course. Obviously you want to protect players, but you also want those races to the puck to maybe create some chances. Good hustle by a forward can create some scoring opportunities. You don't want to see guys have their career ended by racing back and getting hit into the boards, so for a defenseman, yes, it would be nice to have no-touch icing."

N.Y. Islanders: Anonymous - No

N.Y. Rangers: Alex Kovalev - No
"I like it the way it is now, having the chance to win a race and create a scoring chance."

Ottawa: Anonymous - No

Philadelphia: Jim Vandermeer - No
"No. I'm against it. It (regular icing) keeps the play going. It makes guys skate harder back for the puck. D-men get hit a lot more out of it but it keeps everybody in the game."

Phoenix: Ossi Vaananen - Yes

Pittsburgh: Richard Lintner - Yes

St. Louis: Chris Pronger - Yes
"I can't see why you wouldn't. I don't think when it comes down to it it's going to hurt. It's going to force guys to get the line. You can't dump it in and try to get after it. It's going to force that team to try and take the line and move it in."

San Jose: Dan McGillis - No

Tampa Bay: Anonymous - Yes

Toronto: Anonymous - No

Vancouver: Dan Cloutier - Yes
"You never want to see your top defenseman out for the season because he's hurt fighting for an icing."

Washington: Anonymous - Yes
"Long overdue."

Material from The Hockey News.
To subscribe, visit The Hockey News web site at: http://www.thehockeynews.com