Checking from behind...

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:20 pm

I think its a serious and dangerous infraction but one that is often not called properly and misunderstood...and probably should have a different name. Attention was drawn to CFB a few years back when a college player was seriuosly injured when he was checked from behind about 8 feet from the boards. He went into the boards head first That situation is extremely dangerous and ,as a hockey parent, my worse nightmare. So, the rule was enacted. But the problem with it is that, as some have pointed out, it gets called when the player is checked in the back while he is up against the boards with the puck.....some times right after he has turned his back to the defender. I have been at games where the crowd will yell "checking form behind" at center ice in the middle of the rink because a player has been checked in the back. There ought to be some restrictions on the 2&10 that the contact must be made from behind AND in an area where the danger exists that the player will go into the boards head first. Some refs call it that way. I am no sports medicine expert but I dont think that getting hit in the back is any more dangerous than getting hit in the front...maybe less. So, they should clarify it to make it protect the players as intended but not overly penalize good clean hits.

MediaGuide · Post by **MediaGuide** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:34 pm

I agree with "situationalizing" the CFB rule, but that's easier said than done, and I would favor default more to protecting players than not. And don't underestimate the potential danger is a CFB anywhere, like mid-ice. Last year I saw a CFB near the center dot that resulted in a season-ending whiplash-type injury. One overriding concept to officiating hockey that is not well understood is that above all else and above any single rule, a ref has the discretion to apply his or her authority to fit the given circumstance of the game and to protect players. An excellent ref will almost always make the punishment fit the crime, and sometimes they do it extremely creatively. The 1 ref, 2 linesmen system in Bantams and above (like the Elite league) is an absolute travesty - there is NO way, even in a Bantam game, that one ref can adequately cover the entire sheet and all players. I'm astonished everytime I see it!

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:29 pm

Any check can be dangerous, whether it is in the front or back or side. We have all seen perfectly legal hits cause injury. Sure, it would be harder to call CFB if it were "situationalized" but thats why we should stress it. "Lets error on the side of safety" is certainly an approach but it results in a lot of really uncalled for 10 minute penalties.

thunderdan · Post by **thunderdan** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:58 am

knowlz, HS needs a 3 man system because the game is just too fast for the 2 referees to be doing two things at once. its hard to be looking at a potential offsides call while also looking for a penalty at the same time. The system where they have one ref and two linesman is used simply because it takes care of all the icings and offsides while also having one point of view for penalties instead of two different ways of calling infractions. I agree though about how tough it can be for one referee to see all the players and situations going on at one time.

hockeyjunky · Post by **hockeyjunky** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:26 am

I don't think this is called nearly enough. I saw a player injured in this situation last week in a varsity game. It happened in the 1st period and he never returned. Had a lower back injury. The ref called a penalty but only a 2 minute. If the ref saw the play enough to call a penalty, why wasn't it a 2 & 10 or 5 min. misconduct? I believe it's because they don't want to do the paperwork after the game in some cases. This is a penalty that should always be called. If a player knows this is going to be called everytime they simply would try to stop when seeing someone's back. I have seen it not called numerous times this year. Every year the MSHSL says they are gonna get tougher but never do. How many kids have to get major injuries before it is strictly enforced? Theres been too many already. Yes I believe in letting them play but this rule is in place to protect from serious inury and should be strictly enforced.

MediaGuide · Post by **MediaGuide** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:42 am

Not calling something to avoid the paperwork would be ridiculous, especially since the paperwork is extremely simple and minimal with the MSHSL.

hockeyjunky · Post by **hockeyjunky** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:33 pm

I agree it is a ridiculous excuse, but it is one I have heard. Not from a varsity level but in youth hockey. If you know any referees, ask them about this subject. If there are any refs out there please respond.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:00 pm

Maybe the ref didnt call it because he didnt think the punishment fit the crime. It is a tough call at times. The player suddenly turns his back into the check and boom. We've all seen it. It happens a lot. Maybe the ref felt the player really couldnt stop but it was technically a check from behind so a penalty was called. I watch a lot of youth hockey and the refs never seem to excercise any discretion. If the kid turns his back or not, they call it CFB. I think thats wrong. The player who turns his back is creating the problem.

slapshooter · Post by **slapshooter** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:38 pm

They should build 3 inch spikes into the back side of the shoulder pads and upper rear pads of the breezers! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> There'd be a lot less checking from behind then don't ya think?<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil"> S<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> S

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:39 pm

I have seen refs use discretion on this call if they don't think it's a dangerous play. They will call what used to be a minor for checking from behind a minor for boarding or roughing so they don't have to sit a kid down for ten. I would have to say that every 2&10 I've seen handed out in the last two seasons has been warranted, and I think the refs have been doing a good job (I can't believe I just said that).<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:05 pm

In youth hockey in Minnesota (or at least D16) refs have been told that a check from behind in a dangerous situation (especially along the boards & around the net) will be a major and a game disqualification. If, in the refs judgement, the player (recieving the check) does not thave the time or opportunity to provide protection (reaction time) for himself it will be a major. Other checks from behind that are truely that and not as dangerous will be CFB 2 & 10's. Other borderline CFB for whatever the reason will be rough/crosscheck etc... The refs in D 16 seem to be doing a good job with this.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:40 pm

Great idea slappy. Precisley the remedy. However, I am toying with the idea of introducing a penalty for "turning your back". Its kind of like "diving." The refs simply do not have enough to think adout now as things stand. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Kodiak, Its all in the eyes of the beholder but my experiece is different. The refs, to put it kindly, struggle with CFB in a big way.

Renegade Ram · Post by **Renegade Ram** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:02 pm

I agree...it seems to be a size issue if the player you check from behind is bigger that the player doing the checking it seems as if the official feels that it's a big guy he can handle it so he goes for the "CFB Lite" call ie: Boarding. "CFB Lite" I like that one; maybe Minnesota Hockey should invent it, oh wait the officials already have.....<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|">

captainug · Post by **captainug** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:06 pm

I think boarding should be the 2+10. yea, someone does occasionally get hurt with a checking from behind at center ice, but almost every time I was hit away from the boards and got my head smacked against the boards akwardly, it hurt. Thankfully I was never hit very hard into the boards because I was one of the larger guys out on the ice.

crosscheck · Post by **crosscheck** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:47 am

Bottom line, is it is a dangerous situation. Start calling it in the youth level through college. Time to eliminate it from the game!

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Checking from behind...

CFB

Re: CFB

Re: CFB

3 man systems

CFB

Re: CFB

CFB

Re: CFB

How 'bout this idea?......by SS

Situations...

Re: How 'bout this idea?......by SS

Re: How 'bout this idea?......by SS

Re: How 'bout this idea?......by SS

Boarding/CFB

Hit/behind