Refs

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Bleed Maroon and Gold
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:05 am
Location: Centerville

Post by Bleed Maroon and Gold » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:53 pm

[quote="Duluthguy"][quote="The Next One"][quote="Ref22"][quote="CommunityBased"]Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.[/quote]

Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?[/quote]

Why inexperienced?...sounds like the right call....u can't slash d or f before the whistle so why should the goalie be any different?....puck is lose whack away...puck is covered get out of there[/quote]

Ref22: Thanks for participating in this discussion. It's helpful to most of us who aren't trained to be officials and may not know the rules as they differ between levels (youth, high school, college, pros, etc.)

I'd like to hear your response to the situation above regarding slashing the goalie. The questions appear rhetorical in nature, but I think legitimate to ask: Why did you think the ref in the scenario was inexperienced, and why are goaltenders treated differently than skaters in terms of being slashed? I've seen goalies slashed when covering the puck--or attempting to--but never seen it called. Is there something in the book that allows an opposing player to slash the goalie when he (the attacking player) is attempting to play the puck?

And yes, I'm a goalie parent!

Thanks![/quote]

I have to love this. Our bantam team was in Virginia for a tournament this year. The goalie was repeatedly slashed or poked at at the whistle and after. Our team only has one goalie. Discussion was had with the official that if he can't make the slashing call then our defense need to protect him from getting injured. The official stated that it was not a slash and he would let the players protect the goalie but would issue penalties. How is this not a slash and in what case are the kids able to protect the goalie if the official wont?

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:16 pm

Duluthguy wrote:
The Next One wrote:
Ref22 wrote:
CommunityBased wrote:Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.
Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?
Why inexperienced?...sounds like the right call....u can't slash d or f before the whistle so why should the goalie be any different?....puck is lose whack away...puck is covered get out of there
Ref22: Thanks for participating in this discussion. It's helpful to most of us who aren't trained to be officials and may not know the rules as they differ between levels (youth, high school, college, pros, etc.)

I'd like to hear your response to the situation above regarding slashing the goalie. The questions appear rhetorical in nature, but I think legitimate to ask: Why did you think the ref in the scenario was inexperienced, and why are goaltenders treated differently than skaters in terms of being slashed? I've seen goalies slashed when covering the puck--or attempting to--but never seen it called. Is there something in the book that allows an opposing player to slash the goalie when he (the attacking player) is attempting to play the puck?

And yes, I'm a goalie parent!

Thanks!
I would say he may have been inexperienced because and this is not a good comparison really but it's similar to holding in football, not quite but similar. You could penalize a player for slashing the goalie on the majority of situations where the goalie is freezing the puck especially at the lower levels if you really wanted to. That would slow the game down big time and I don't think anyone would be in favor of that. Goalies are the most protected person on the ice and it would most of the time take intent and significant force to injure a goalies glove or blocker hand. That's the big thing with me is intent. If I see a player is digging for a rebound right away trying to play the puck I'm not going to call a penalty. If I see a kid come flying in and starts hacking away at a goalies wrist or forearm I will call it because he isn't in my opinion attempting to play the puck. The rule book states that the goalie must freeze the puck for 3 seconds before the play is dead. Obviously you are going to get refs who are much quicker (more common) and less often guys that will take more than 3 seconds. This rule is in place to try and lessen the amount of waved off goals in cases which a puck ends up trickling through the goalies pads. The rule should not really apply to a goalie who has the puck covered securely on the ice but it is in the language. I'm blowing the whistle right away when I know for sure the goalie has the puck locked down.

BluehawkHockey
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am

Post by BluehawkHockey » Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:01 pm

From rule 634 Slashing

A minor penalty shall be assessed to any player who makes stick contact with an opposing goalkeeper while he is in his goal crease and who has covered or caught the puck, regardless of whether or not the Referee has stopped play.

The rule specifically says it is to be called regardless of whether play has been stopped or not.

Now I don't think it should be called every time. But when the pushing/shoving starts, it could certainly cool things down.

Duluthguy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:30 pm

Post by Duluthguy » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:37 am

Ref22 wrote:
Duluthguy wrote:
The Next One wrote:
Ref22 wrote:
CommunityBased wrote:Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.
Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?
Why inexperienced?...sounds like the right call....u can't slash d or f before the whistle so why should the goalie be any different?....puck is lose whack away...puck is covered get out of there
Ref22: Thanks for participating in this discussion. It's helpful to most of us who aren't trained to be officials and may not know the rules as they differ between levels (youth, high school, college, pros, etc.)

I'd like to hear your response to the situation above regarding slashing the goalie. The questions appear rhetorical in nature, but I think legitimate to ask: Why did you think the ref in the scenario was inexperienced, and why are goaltenders treated differently than skaters in terms of being slashed? I've seen goalies slashed when covering the puck--or attempting to--but never seen it called. Is there something in the book that allows an opposing player to slash the goalie when he (the attacking player) is attempting to play the puck?

And yes, I'm a goalie parent!

Thanks!
I would say he may have been inexperienced because and this is not a good comparison really but it's similar to holding in football, not quite but similar. You could penalize a player for slashing the goalie on the majority of situations where the goalie is freezing the puck especially at the lower levels if you really wanted to. That would slow the game down big time and I don't think anyone would be in favor of that. Goalies are the most protected person on the ice and it would most of the time take intent and significant force to injure a goalies glove or blocker hand. That's the big thing with me is intent. If I see a player is digging for a rebound right away trying to play the puck I'm not going to call a penalty. If I see a kid come flying in and starts hacking away at a goalies wrist or forearm I will call it because he isn't in my opinion attempting to play the puck. The rule book states that the goalie must freeze the puck for 3 seconds before the play is dead. Obviously you are going to get refs who are much quicker (more common) and less often guys that will take more than 3 seconds. This rule is in place to try and lessen the amount of waved off goals in cases which a puck ends up trickling through the goalies pads. The rule should not really apply to a goalie who has the puck covered securely on the ice but it is in the language. I'm blowing the whistle right away when I know for sure the goalie has the puck locked down.
Thanks for the insight, Ref22. Some thoughts:

1) Never heard the 3 second rule. That's a long time. No goalie parent ever argues about quick whistles--even when it's the other goalie involved!

2) My kid was taught coached to cover the puck and pull it under his chest if possible, that way protecting the puck and his hand. Those times when a goalie has to reach to cover the puck leaves his hand/arm vulnerable to injury--and vulnerable to having the puck whacked loose.

3) I think there's a difference between "jabbing" at the glove to poke the puck loose--really in a "spearing" motion--as opposed to "slashing" at the back of a hand. I would say the majority of the time it's this jabbing/spearing motion (and I know "spearing" is a loaded word, but I'm using it descriptively as opposed to saying it should be a spearing penalty), and I don't think that's not as likely to cause injury as a slash. However, there are definitely times when an offensive player is trying to jab at the puck, misses, and ends up whacking the hand, wrist, or arm. The intent to slash may not be there, but that shouldn't matter.

4) I'm more concerned about everyone's safety than the pace of the game. In games that are called more tightly, the players generally are smart enough to adjust--yes, some more quickly than others. I wish the coaches and parents who screamed at officials who are trying to keep the players safe would take a deep breath and understand what the officials are trying to do.

Double22
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:20 am

Post by Double22 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:39 am

"Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary."

I completely agree with this mindset. I think refs can save themselves from having to deal with a lot of nonsense after the whistle by using this approach. The one caveat I would put to that would be when the goalie is clearly having trouble handling the puck & freezing it. Kinda hard to give the goalie the benefit of a quick whistle when he can't hang onto the thing.

jpiehl
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:09 am

Post by jpiehl » Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:58 am

The only way it slows the game down is if players continue to do it. Then it is on them, not the referee. In any games I have been at that it is called that way, they figure it out pretty quickly because they don't like being shorthanded. No different than any other call, but nobody is making the argument that calling an elbow to the head is slowing the game down so we just won't call it. A stricter adherance to the rule quoted above would clean up many games and keep the ref from losing control.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:52 am

jpiehl wrote:The only way it slows the game down is if players continue to do it. Then it is on them, not the referee. In any games I have been at that it is called that way, they figure it out pretty quickly because they don't like being shorthanded. No different than any other call, but nobody is making the argument that calling an elbow to the head is slowing the game down so we just won't call it. A stricter adherance to the rule quoted above would clean up many games and keep the ref from losing control.
When is the last time you've seen a ref lose control of a game in mn youth hockey?

Double22
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:20 am

Post by Double22 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:44 pm

Here's one for ya, Ref22:

Curious to here your thoughts on forwards "spraying" the goalie's face with snow on a hard stop right in front of him. At times, this is an unavoidable consequence of a goal mouth scramble. Other times, when the goalie has clearly covered the puck, no immediate pressure on him, nothing to see here, and a forward goes to the net hard, stops right in front of the goalie, and gives him a face full of snow. What is your interpretation of this play?

DrGaf
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Post by DrGaf » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:17 pm

Double22 wrote:Here's one for ya, Ref22:

Curious to here your thoughts on forwards "spraying" the goalie's face with snow on a hard stop right in front of him. At times, this is an unavoidable consequence of a goal mouth scramble. Other times, when the goalie has clearly covered the puck, no immediate pressure on him, nothing to see here, and a forward goes to the net hard, stops right in front of the goalie, and gives him a face full of snow. What is your interpretation of this play?
I love it.
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.

Westernsaddle
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:31 pm

Post by Westernsaddle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:32 pm

I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic Ref when you ask when if the last time you see refs lose control in a youth hockey game. If you're serious, it happens a lot. Not to the point of fighting, but when teams are left to spray the goalie or unnecessarily clear it out in front of the net, continually let late hits happen, etc..., the res have lost control of the game. If you were serious, do you not see or hear of this happening?

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:44 am

Have seen a bunch of peewee games get out of hand. Young refs trying to interpret the checking rule, while young kids are trying to interpret the checking rule, while coaches are trying to interpret the checking rule.

nobody
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:13 am

Post by nobody » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:53 am

..
Last edited by nobody on Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

bestpopcorn
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am

Post by bestpopcorn » Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:32 am

InigoMontoya wrote:Have seen a bunch of peewee games get out of hand. Young refs trying to interpret the checking rule, while young kids are trying to interpret the checking rule, while coaches are trying to interpret the checking rule.
You forgot the parents...

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:53 pm

bestpopcorn wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:Have seen a bunch of peewee games get out of hand. Young refs trying to interpret the checking rule, while young kids are trying to interpret the checking rule, while coaches are trying to interpret the checking rule.
You forgot the parents...
Count me in that group. I'm all for allowing a little body contact, or rubbing, as a defensive player is making a play for the puck, or even using a body and the glass to position the opposing player so he's at a disadvantage in battling for the puck in the corner. However, I've seen games where maintaining one's position has been called checking all the way to games where defensemen took away the inside, angled the puck carrier to the board, then dropped a shoulder and laid the kid out with no play to the puck at all with the ref shaking his head. Even within the same game, the two refs are calling it differently. Personally, I think there should be checking in peewee hockey - just tell the puck carrier.

Stripes2011
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:06 pm

Post by Stripes2011 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:07 pm

I can only tell you from my experience on the checking part of the game. It is very subjective, everyone see's it different. from the players, coaches, fan's(Including parents) as well as officials. if one kid falls down it makes it even more subjective. which team fell? size difference of the players? it is tough. as an official I try to watch the position of the stick. not a great science, but if the stick is off the ice its hard to argue that the player was going into play the puck. I'll also say it sometimes also depends on the style of play both teams play. body contact is part of the game, bumping does happen. its one / maybe 2 officials judgement on a given moment to determine if its a legal play or not. hard for an official to determine a players "intent". we do the best we can.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:03 pm

I was at a tournament last weekend and was watching the action from one end of the rink. I had a perfect view of a forward coming down on a defenseman one on one. As the defenseman skated backwards he artfully took away the forwards space and angled him into the sideboards. He finished it off with a perfectly executed hip check. Of course it was checking and it was called. What a shame. It was a perfectly executed hockey play, a YouTube instructional video, and the kid's reward was to go sit in the box. All the father's around me agreed it was a beautiful play, and it was a penalty.

Too bad.

As far as Pee Wees go I am all for body contact. I think they should be able to angle off and rub out the opposing players. I think the thing to watch out for is open ice hits and slams into the boards.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:04 pm

Sorry for the lack of responses lately. I was out of town for a weekend series and will respond to the questions shortly.

LivinDaDream
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:14 pm

Post by LivinDaDream » Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:52 pm

Great thread Ref22! A refreshed thread to check in on from time to time.

No questions - just wanted to say thanks for your continued input and comments regarding the topics at hand. =D>

If you dont have any questions from time to time, maybe your input on some common 'rules' that coaches and players tend to overlook and second guess the calls?

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:55 pm

Double22 wrote:Here's one for ya, Ref22:

Curious to here your thoughts on forwards "spraying" the goalie's face with snow on a hard stop right in front of him. At times, this is an unavoidable consequence of a goal mouth scramble. Other times, when the goalie has clearly covered the puck, no immediate pressure on him, nothing to see here, and a forward goes to the net hard, stops right in front of the goalie, and gives him a face full of snow. What is your interpretation of this play?
My interpretation is that I'm giving one of the goalies teammates a roughing penalty and the offender an unsportsmanlike.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:57 pm

Westernsaddle wrote:I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic Ref when you ask when if the last time you see refs lose control in a youth hockey game. If you're serious, it happens a lot. Not to the point of fighting, but when teams are left to spray the goalie or unnecessarily clear it out in front of the net, continually let late hits happen, etc..., the res have lost control of the game. If you were serious, do you not see or hear of this happening?
I don't hear much about it. I think the transition to no checking in peewees through the referees interpretation has gone very well also. It could be much much worse.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:01 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:Have seen a bunch of peewee games get out of hand. Young refs trying to interpret the checking rule, while young kids are trying to interpret the checking rule, while coaches are trying to interpret the checking rule.
My latest reply should have gone to you. Unfortunately there have been some great checks that would have been perfectly legal just a few years ago that we as refs have to call every time. Count me in as someone who wants peewee checking allowed. Kids are increasingly more skating with their heads down even at the A levels and they get away with it but will be in for a big surprise when they hit bantams.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:02 pm

nobody wrote:
Ref22 wrote:
jpiehl wrote:The only way it slows the game down is if players continue to do it. Then it is on them, not the referee. In any games I have been at that it is called that way, they figure it out pretty quickly because they don't like being shorthanded. No different than any other call, but nobody is making the argument that calling an elbow to the head is slowing the game down so we just won't call it. A stricter adherance to the rule quoted above would clean up many games and keep the ref from losing control.
When is the last time you've seen a ref lose control of a game in mn youth hockey?
completely?.....Jan 12 2014
What happened? level? district?

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:04 pm

Just a tip for you coaches out there. Don't be that coach on the bench that throws his hand in the air every time one of your players fall.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:37 pm

Here's to an exciting and healthy final month of the regular season.

Duluthguy
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:30 pm

Post by Duluthguy » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:02 am

Ref22 wrote:
Double22 wrote:Here's one for ya, Ref22:

Curious to here your thoughts on forwards "spraying" the goalie's face with snow on a hard stop right in front of him. At times, this is an unavoidable consequence of a goal mouth scramble. Other times, when the goalie has clearly covered the puck, no immediate pressure on him, nothing to see here, and a forward goes to the net hard, stops right in front of the goalie, and gives him a face full of snow. What is your interpretation of this play?
My interpretation is that I'm giving one of the goalies teammates a roughing penalty and the offender an unsportsmanlike.
Why does the goalie's teammate get a roughing penalty, when according to the scenario stated, none of his teammates are involved?

Post Reply