Hockey injuries

[Oldtimehockeyguy23]

How about no checking within 5ft of the boards??? Angle and open ice checks only. This would almost eliminate all serious injuries with the exception of some concussions suffered from open ice hits. I realize this would drastically change the game but it's just an idea that could be tweaked a bit. By the way, don't throw the coaches under the bus on this stuff. If you want to blame someone, the player usually is a kid out of control. It's funny how it seems to be the same players (not always) as they move up into higher levels. The goons in peewees yesterday are tomorrows goons in HS.

Why hasn't anybody commented on how crazy this sounds? Do you want boy's hockey to be girl's hockey? because once you start these crazy ideas, where is the line drawn? People need to stop freaking out about injuries in hockey. There is MUCH MORE injuries in football but do you see them changing the rules and suggesting crazy ideas like this one? Obviously intentionally dangerous play and unintentional dangerous play should be both punished. But seriously when you start talking about changing the rules of hockey, you are going down a slippery slope. Many hits from behind are unavoidable. The main thing that would help this cause is to teach kids how to PROTECT themselves, rather than telling them they won't be hit from behind ever.

[MNHockeyFan]

Many hits from behind are unavoidable. The main thing that would help this cause is to teach kids how to PROTECT themselves, rather than telling them they won't be hit from behind ever.

While I agree that checking should NOT be eliminated from the boys game, I do not agree that the solution relies solely on teaching kids how to "protect themselves". This in and of itself will do very little to change anything; after all, in the sentence before you say that many hits from behind are "unavoidable". On the contrary, the vast majority of hits from behind are completely avoidable, but only if players (and their coaches and teams) pay a steep price when they occur. Put some real teeth into the enforcement of the rules, dictated by the MSHSL all the way down, and the message will get through.

[goldy313]

Why hasn't anybody commented on how crazy this sounds? Do you want boy's hockey to be girl's hockey? because once you start these crazy ideas, where is the line drawn? People need to stop freaking out about injuries in hockey. There is MUCH MORE injuries in football but do you see them changing the rules and suggesting crazy ideas like this one? Obviously intentionally dangerous play and unintentional dangerous play should be both punished. But seriously when you start talking about changing the rules of hockey, you are going down a slippery slope. Many hits from behind are unavoidable. The main thing that would help this cause is to teach kids how to PROTECT themselves, rather than telling them they won't be hit from behind ever.

Umm..... football has changed its rules, it has actually been a much more fluid rulebook to protect kids over the years...you hardly see clipping anymore because you can no longer block in the back, clipping was a much more potentially dangerous foul. They away moved from the addage of "play to the whistle" (which was always false) to a play until the play is over mentality. This year they took out any high/low block and did a couple of adjustments on kickoffs to protect the receivers, both of those had a major impact on some teams. Hockey has gone the other route; what was once an elbow is now a good hit, what was once a slash is now letting them play.

I do agree teaching kids to protect themselves is important but the flip side is hockey is the only sport where you can get rewarded for putting yourself in a bad spot. If you go into the boards like an idiot either you get the puck because you can't be checked or you get checked and draw a penalty, now half the head contact penalties I see are due to the player lowering his head or leading with his head, exactly the opposite of what you should do but hey I can draw a penalty.

[HShockeywatcher]

Why hasn't anybody commented on how crazy this sounds? Do you want boy's hockey to be girl's hockey? because once you start these crazy ideas, where is the line drawn? People need to stop freaking out about injuries in hockey. There is MUCH MORE injuries in football but do you see them changing the rules and suggesting crazy ideas like this one? Obviously intentionally dangerous play and unintentional dangerous play should be both punished. But seriously when you start talking about changing the rules of hockey, you are going down a slippery slope. Many hits from behind are unavoidable. The main thing that would help this cause is to teach kids how to PROTECT themselves, rather than telling them they won't be hit from behind ever.

Very few are suggesting changing the rules. Some are, yes, but not many.

Most are advocating for the current rules to be called.

Are you seriously saying that you would not enjoy a game without any illegal hits? The illegal ones are the only ones we're talking about here. Additionally, often times making that illegal hit or "finishing your check" is simply the wrong hockey play to make and is being taught for the sake of hitting.

If you compared the numbers of players who suit up for football to those with serious injuries, then did the same with hockey, I'm guessing you'd be surprised with your findings.
I know my experience with either sport isn't as fast as some, but I have personally been at or read about multiple hockey games in the last few years where players where carted off the ice because of getting injured from illegal hits. In that time frame, I have been to more HS football games and never seen the same.

The serious injuries are the ones we care about, not someone spraining their ankle.

Also, like hockey, both football and basketball have been asking their officials recently to enforce the rules better, or more consistently, or whatever adage you want to use.

Hockey is a physical game. There are legal ways to hit each other that are advantageous hockey moves. Kids are bigger, faster and stronger than they have ever been and will most likely continue to be in the future. Hits, logically, will be harder and faster. There are also illegal ways to hit people that regardless of size, strength or speed are illegal for a reason and are bad for hockey all around.

If a 17 or 18 year old kid goes up to a classmate in the hallway and pushes him from behind into the wall hard and he gets seriously injured, the student will likely get jail time. If he does it on the ice, night after night, it's "part of hockey," sometimes gets called and is still... illegal.

[CitiesSpudsGuy]

In tonight's Moorhead/TRF game, there was very nearly another Jack Jablonski injury. Late in the 2nd period, a frustrated TRF player took a minor penalty. After the whistle blew, the same TRF player checked Moorhead's Aaron Herdt into the boards from behind, head first. Herdt was on the ice face down for a few minutes but thankfully was able to get up on his own and skate to the bench. Fortunately he was also back on the ice in the 3rd period.

What penalty did the TRF player receive? Two minutes for the minor penalty, 5 minute major for checking from behind and a game DQ. The correct call in my book and this is exactly how these hits need to be penalized every time.

[WB6162]

How about no checking within 5ft of the boards??? Angle and open ice checks only. This would almost eliminate all serious injuries with the exception of some concussions suffered from open ice hits. I realize this would drastically change the game but it's just an idea that could be tweaked a bit. By the way, don't throw the coaches under the bus on this stuff. If you want to blame someone, the player usually is a kid out of control. It's funny how it seems to be the same players (not always) as they move up into higher levels. The goons in peewees yesterday are tomorrows goons in HS.

Why hasn't anybody commented on how crazy this sounds? Do you want boy's hockey to be girl's hockey? because once you start these crazy ideas, where is the line drawn? People need to stop freaking out about injuries in hockey. There is MUCH MORE injuries in football but do you see them changing the rules and suggesting crazy ideas like this one? Obviously intentionally dangerous play and unintentional dangerous play should be both punished. But seriously when you start talking about changing the rules of hockey, you are going down a slippery slope. Many hits from behind are unavoidable. The main thing that would help this cause is to teach kids how to PROTECT themselves, rather than telling them they won't be hit from behind ever.

I for one think that youth hockey, all the way through High School without checking would still be enjoyable. I'm not advocating that but you seem to think without checking at the HS age level the sport is ruined. I for one think that as we mature we become stronger and much more suited to taking these big hits.

I've seen my son take big hits now at the college level, and hits from behind but he seems much better at absorbing the hit and positioning himself better when he hits the boards. Much stronger core ect.

I think the checking can be taught in the JR leagues before college and it wouldn't hurt the sport at all.

Hockey is unique from Football and other contact sports. Hard ice, high speed and those inflexible boards around the playing area present a very unique challenge.

[Mite-dad]

IMVHO, as long as checking is allowed in any form in hockey, kids are going to get seriously hurt. As long as "finishing" your check is allowed, or big open ice hits, kids are going to get seriously hurt. Heck, a kid can get seriously hurt by a perfectly legal hit.

We can beat around the bush and micromanage hitting this way and that, but the fact is, as long as checking is part of the game, and big hits are part of the game, kids will get paralyzed, concussed, knees and shoulders destroyed, and bones broken. Who are we kidding?

[dangle_snipe]

IMVHO, as long as checking is allowed in any form in hockey, kids are going to get seriously hurt. As long as "finishing" your check is allowed, or big open ice hits, kids are going to get seriously hurt. Heck, a kid can get seriously hurt by a perfectly legal hit.

We can beat around the bush and micromanage hitting this way and that, but the fact is, as long as checking is part of the game, and big hits are part of the game, kids will get paralyzed, concussed, knees and shoulders destroyed, and bones broken. Who are we kidding?

Hmmm so are there no concussions, neck injuries, blown ACL's, dislocated shoulders in girls hockey?

[Mite-dad]

IMVHO, as long as checking is allowed in any form in hockey, kids are going to get seriously hurt. As long as "finishing" your check is allowed, or big open ice hits, kids are going to get seriously hurt. Heck, a kid can get seriously hurt by a perfectly legal hit.

We can beat around the bush and micromanage hitting this way and that, but the fact is, as long as checking is part of the game, and big hits are part of the game, kids will get paralyzed, concussed, knees and shoulders destroyed, and bones broken. Who are we kidding?

Hmmm so are there no concussions, neck injuries, blown ACL's, dislocated shoulders in girls hockey?

I didn't say there wasn't, but I'm sure it is no where near the rate of boys hockey injuries. The speed of the game and hard surfaces both below and around the kids along with accidental collisions will cause there to be severe injuries even in the absence of checking. Add checking into the equation and an even faster game for boys, and you have a much higher potential for severe injury. It is common sense. You can clean up the game all you want, but if checking is a part of the game, the accidental check in the back or the middle ice blow up of the kid with his head down will still cause severe injury. You may be able to reduce it slightly, but to make it totally safe with checking is absurd. Not possible.

[puckhead58]

IMVHO, as long as checking is allowed in any form in hockey, kids are going to get seriously hurt. As long as "finishing" your check is allowed, or big open ice hits, kids are going to get seriously hurt. Heck, a kid can get seriously hurt by a perfectly legal hit.

We can beat around the bush and micromanage hitting this way and that, but the fact is, as long as checking is part of the game, and big hits are part of the game, kids will get paralyzed, concussed, knees and shoulders destroyed, and bones broken. Who are we kidding?

Hmmm so are there no concussions, neck injuries, blown ACL's, dislocated shoulders in girls hockey?

I didn't say there wasn't, but I'm sure it is no where near the rate of boys hockey injuries. The speed of the game and hard surfaces both below and around the kids along with accidental collisions will cause there to be severe injuries even in the absence of checking. Add checking into the equation and an even faster game for boys, and you have a much higher potential for severe injury. It is common sense. You can clean up the game all you want, but if checking is a part of the game, the accidental check in the back or the middle ice blow up of the kid with his head down will still cause severe injury. You may be able to reduce it slightly, but to make it totally safe with checking is absurd. Not possible.

....concussions are more frequent and often more severe in girls hockey.

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... rous-game/

[Mite-dad]

Hmmm so are there no concussions, neck injuries, blown ACL's, dislocated shoulders in girls hockey?

I didn't say there wasn't, but I'm sure it is no where near the rate of boys hockey injuries. The speed of the game and hard surfaces both below and around the kids along with accidental collisions will cause there to be severe injuries even in the absence of checking. Add checking into the equation and an even faster game for boys, and you have a much higher potential for severe injury. It is common sense. You can clean up the game all you want, but if checking is a part of the game, the accidental check in the back or the middle ice blow up of the kid with his head down will still cause severe injury. You may be able to reduce it slightly, but to make it totally safe with checking is absurd. Not possible.

....concussions are more frequent and often more severe in girls hockey.

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... rous-game/

I stand corrected (at least at the ncaa level). It is obvious that checking makes the game safer.

[greybeard58]

The first item that needs to be addressed is the coaches black balling officials who call the game correctly. One or 2 associations that will assign the referees to do all High School games. Now with the officials knowing someone has their back they can call the game correctly.
Second at the state tournament call all penalties and maybe the message will get through.
Third call in coaches whose teams play a dirty brand of hockey and pull their credentials.

[Bandy]

I stand corrected (at least at the ncaa level). It is obvious that checking makes the game safer.

There is checking in girls hockey at all levels, starting with U8's. Just not legal checking.

I have two girls, both have had concussions, both from checks that are illegal in all hockey. One a check from behind; the other a cross check. Those were my interpretations anyway. Experienced referees turned a blind eye in both cases.

A permissive, "let them play" attitude in girls or boys, mites on up to the highest levels, absolutely contributes to the injury rate. A premium on hard-hitting physical play absolutely contributes to the injury rate.

[hipcheck]

Get rid of face masks. Let the kids wear half shields to protect eyes. Vision becomes better and players can avoid playing with head down. Their line of sight improves allowing them to dodge oncoming checkers.

That being said, players need to understand that the worse outcome of a dangerous check is not getting a 5 mnute major and game disqualification, but rather permanently injuring a player.

Nobody should have to endure seeing a player hit from behind and suffering a life threatening injury!

[Oldtimehockeyguy23]

Get rid of face masks. Let the kids wear half shields to protect eyes. Vision becomes better and players can avoid playing with head down. Their line of sight improves allowing them to dodge oncoming checkers.

That being said, players need to understand that the worse outcome of a dangerous check is not getting a 5 mnute major and game disqualification, but rather permanently injuring a player.

Nobody should have to endure seeing a player hit from behind and suffering a life threatening injury!

Great idea, not only would vision be improved but opposing players would learn to keep sticks and hands down because instead of just hitting someone's mask, they are hitting someone's face. It would teach kids to keep their sticks DOWN.

But honestly, life is dangerous and saying eliminating checking from the game is a crazy thought because it WOULD cause more injuries in college, pros etc. Let them check in squirts to teach kids how to take a hit.

[Bandy]

One more thought for the thread... Catastrophic injuries from hard hits are infrequent. That does not mean that when one does happen that it's a "freak accident." In my opinion, that notion basically forfeits any accountability or responsibility. It would be like saying we know drunk driving is dangerous, but it's driving and accidents happen, and there's nothing we can do about it.

When you have so many big strong kids skating fast, and laying hard hits on one another, whether it's into the boards, open ice, shot to the head, check from behind, cross-check, legal, or illegal...its just a matter of time. You don't get a catostrophic injury with every hit, or even every 100th hit, but you will get them. You just don't know when, where, or who.

Take the illegal hits out of hockey, and you'll reduce the injury rate. You'll never eliminate them, just like you'll never elimintate them from skiing, but the focus should be on reducing them, and on elevating other aspects of the game like puck skills, tactics, etc.

[hockeyfan893]

Any thoughts on the idea I posted on page 1 regarding the institution of monetary fines to players and / or associations for dangerous hits?

[markp]

I was @ the Shakopee vs Farmington game and one of the boy's from Shakopee was hit from behind head first into the boards. He was out on the ice for at least 5 minutes. Finally he was taken to the bench where he was throwing up due to an obvious severe concussion. Now the best part, no penalty was called. After the game the Shakopee head coach reviewed the tape and went to the refs dressing room and very calmly( with a few people near that confirmed he wasn't being disrespectful) told them that their one job is to protect the boys on the ice..First the said they didn't see it happen. That's when he told then he just watched the tape and it was obvious they were looking right at the Hit right when it happened. (I watched the tape and you could see them looking right at the hit) After he said that, they promptly told him to get the F out of there dressing room.(which was heard by a few people). Their has to be some type of review committee looking at these and making the refs accountable..

[Neuuman]

I was @ the Shakopee vs Farmington game and one of the boy's from Shakopee was hit from behind head first into the boards. He was out on the ice for at least 5 minutes. Finally he was taken to the bench where he was throwing up due to an obvious severe concussion. Now the best part, no penalty was called. After the game the Shakopee head coach reviewed the tape and went to the refs dressing room and very calmly( with a few people near that confirmed he wasn't being disrespectful) told them that their one job is to protect the boys on the ice..First the said they didn't see it happen. That's when he told then he just watched the tape and it was obvious they were looking right at the Hit right when it happened. (I watched the tape and you could see them looking right at the hit) After he said that, they promptly told him to get the F out of there dressing room.(which was heard by a few people). Their has to be some type of review committee looking at these and making the refs accountable..

Hearing this, and with the proliferation of video evidence, this info has to be forwarded to the MSHSL. The ref's are like the first responders. If the ref's take no action, whether through incompetence or indifference, this whole discussion is kind of moot. And I don't think we should restrict this to hits from behind. In the NHL finals last year, I saw a Bruin absolutely exploded on a mid-ice hit. Problem was, he had gotten rid of the puck nearly 2 seconds prior (an eternity in the NHL). I agree players have a certain responsibility to protect themselves, but hitting someone when they are physically vulnerable and when they are doing nothing wrong (not believing they have to "protect themselves" because the play has passed qualifies) should result in an immediate game misconduct and further review and disciplinary action that would result in MAJOR suspensions (30% to 95% of their remaining season/career). If there is no serious penalty, there is no reason to expect players will change their behavior. Just one man's opinion.

[Mite-dad]

I'm not advocating taking checking out of the game at all. I am just pointing out the obvious, that in a game fraught with human error by players and refs, there is little room for human error. In a game where decisions are made in fractions of a second, consequences that are horrible will result. Its part of the game. A player decides in a split second he is going to check a guy, and a split second later the checkee turns his back. Bang! Bad check from behind. It happens often. Just yesterday a defenseman on the high school team was behind the net along the boards and the puck came up and got caught in his breezers or sweater. He grabbed the puck and bent over to drop it in front of him and bang. He gets checked into the boards at an awkward angle and gets shaken up. Things happen so fast bad injuries are unavoidable.

To me the key is good reffing and coaching as many of you have stated. The problem is that refs see things and interpret things differently. I think there should be an unneccessary roughness penalty like there is in football. If the goal is to separate the kid from the puck, you don't have to blow them up to do it. Also, intimidation checks should be called immediately.

[Mite-dad]

I was @ the Shakopee vs Farmington game and one of the boy's from Shakopee was hit from behind head first into the boards. He was out on the ice for at least 5 minutes. Finally he was taken to the bench where he was throwing up due to an obvious severe concussion. Now the best part, no penalty was called. After the game the Shakopee head coach reviewed the tape and went to the refs dressing room and very calmly( with a few people near that confirmed he wasn't being disrespectful) told them that their one job is to protect the boys on the ice..First the said they didn't see it happen. That's when he told then he just watched the tape and it was obvious they were looking right at the Hit right when it happened. (I watched the tape and you could see them looking right at the hit) After he said that, they promptly told him to get the F out of there dressing room.(which was heard by a few people). Their has to be some type of review committee looking at these and making the refs accountable..

Hearing this, and with the proliferation of video evidence, this info has to be forwarded to the MSHSL. The ref's are like the first responders. If the ref's take no action, whether through incompetence or indifference, this whole discussion is kind of moot. And I don't think we should restrict this to hits from behind. In the NHL finals last year, I saw a Bruin absolutely exploded on a mid-ice hit. Problem was, he had gotten rid of the puck nearly 2 seconds prior (an eternity in the NHL). I agree players have a certain responsibility to protect themselves, but hitting someone when they are physically vulnerable and when they are doing nothing wrong (not believing they have to "protect themselves" because the play has passed qualifies) should result in an immediate game misconduct and further review and disciplinary action that would result in MAJOR suspensions (30% to 95% of their remaining season/career). If there is no serious penalty, there is no reason to expect players will change their behavior. Just one man's opinion.

Agree totally.

[Mite-dad]

In the NHL, I think the player responsible for injuring with an illegal hit should be suspended for at least as long as the injured player is out. That would add some accountability.

[HShockeywatcher]

Get rid of face masks. Let the kids wear half shields to protect eyes. Vision becomes better and players can avoid playing with head down. Their line of sight improves allowing them to dodge oncoming checkers.

Great idea, not only would vision be improved but opposing players would learn to keep sticks and hands down because instead of just hitting someone's mask, they are hitting someone's face. It would teach kids to keep their sticks DOWN.

Or kids who like to hit to try to injure others would now be able to more easily hurt other players. Genius!

That being said, players need to understand that the worse outcome of a dangerous check is not getting a 5 mnute major and game disqualification, but rather permanently injuring a player.

Who's the adult here and who's the child? The part of the human brain that thinks about consequences does not fully develop until the mid-20s. Adults want children (sometimes as young as 13 or 14) to think about the future consequences of their actions?

Students don't think about the consequences and often times kids don't know what those consequences could be.\

Any thoughts on the idea I posted on page 1 regarding the institution of monetary fines to players and / or associations for dangerous hits?

So rich kids can hit hard and poor kids can't? Hockey's already a money driven sport. Not a terrible idea in principle, but practically speaking it doesn't seem that great. Some teams out there struggle to field teams, wouldn't want them to add another reason to make it difficult.

There are only two legal hits in Hockey.
Hip and Shoulder. Yet you rarely see either of these in a game.
It's all hands and arms up near the head, or in the chest.
Then there are the Hits in the back.
In front of the net, along the boards. They all are illegal they should all be called.

You can play the body and give a bone crushing hit legally.

I'm still confused. D6Rocks posted this and many people said that he is dead on. So, I'm taking it for what it is; hip, shoulder, and the body head on. So...

I'll accept it's happened a handful of times, but how do you attempt to hit a player 100% legally and end up checking them from behind into the boards? If my imagination is just not very good, let me know, but this defending players for "accidentally" checking someone from behind is crazy. The result may have been the result of something the player getting hit did, but the original hit was still going to be an ILLEGAL check.

Take out acceptance of illegal hits and much would change.

[goldy313]

I was @ the Shakopee vs Farmington game and one of the boy's from Shakopee was hit from behind head first into the boards. He was out on the ice for at least 5 minutes. Finally he was taken to the bench where he was throwing up due to an obvious severe concussion. Now the best part, no penalty was called. After the game the Shakopee head coach reviewed the tape and went to the refs dressing room and very calmly( with a few people near that confirmed he wasn't being disrespectful) told them that their one job is to protect the boys on the ice..First the said they didn't see it happen. That's when he told then he just watched the tape and it was obvious they were looking right at the Hit right when it happened. (I watched the tape and you could see them looking right at the hit) After he said that, they promptly told him to get the F out of there dressing room.(which was heard by a few people). Their has to be some type of review committee looking at these and making the refs accountable..

*First the coach had no business in the referee's room, none.
*Second it is not or ever been the referees job to protect the players, their job is to enforce the rules. Any penalty called is after the fact anyhow. Calling a penalty would not have changed the injury in anyway or protected anyone. There are certain rules designed to protect the players but the referees can't. The only way to protect a player for an official would be to assume an illegal action was going to take place and blow the whistle early, obviously that won't happen. All a referee can do is penalize the offending player not protect the offended player.
*Third the angle from the ice is different from the angle of the camera.
*Lastly there is no rule in the MSHSL that allows for a penalty after the game, this isn't the NHL.

All your post did was show a coach that was out of line.

[rudy]

Game Thursday is canceled.