D6 Checking from behind rule

[The Enlightened One]

I totally agree the problem lies with the referees inability to call the rule book as it has been written for years. In fact, most or all of these "new rules" are not changes to the rule book, they are changes to the penalty time served and now suspensions.

I think your "blood bath is coming" prediction is wrong. There is plenty of passing and heads-up play at Pee-Wee hockey. So not sure what you're watching. AND there was plenty of body contact last year at PW. I think you are 100% wrong that Bantams will be a blood bath.

A and B1 hockey is generally played with a higher skill level than B2 and C. The lower skill levels are where I see more risk of injury. Both from poorly skilled hitters and poorly skilled hittees. I would be in favor of removing checking from the C level at all age groups.

I am not saying that all PeeWee teams are skating like Squirt teams, but most of them are. This year is not gonna be an issue I don't think. There was plenty of body contact and checking last year so this year's first year Bantams have been there, but, next year there will be. Go take a look at the upper level PeeWee teams, other than size they are exactly like squirts and in lots of cases they are not much bigger than squirts. Those kids who are the ones who are gonna get hurt. An issue to be considered too is that other than the cities associations most places don't have C teams and might only have one B teams so those low skill level kids will be playing against upper level kids which will get them exposed to the hitting. Those are the same kids who are targeted as they are slow and have their heads down so they make a nice thud when you blow them up with a hard hit.

I don't think that hitting should be removed from hockey. We have lots of rules on the books to protect the kids. I am also not bashing on 90% of the refs out there who are doing their best to enforce the rules uniformly at all times. Those guys and gals are good. But there are refs out there who are not. I have watched refs let head contact and back checking go in a game because they want to let them play. I have been in a penalty box and seen stuff let go against a team because the ref was mad at a coach. I have seen refs who are old/slow/fat/etc who can't keep up with upper level games so they are behind the play so they don't see stuff. Those same refs don't like to call stuff, they want to let them play. Have also seen refs not call stuff in the 3rd period of lopsided games because they don't want to stop the game, they want it to get over with. All of that stuff falls back on a few bad refs who need to be gotten rid of.

You are right about coaches needing to be educated too. They need to understand that there is a difference between being an advocate for your team and crossing a line and getting abusive towards a ref. You can just see the kids on the teams change attitude when that happens, those kids start to get stupid figuring that they have the upper hand.

All of this boils down to keeping a great game between kids under control, not so that they can all turn pro but so that they don't wind up with their number on a sticker on a helmet. Removing checking is not the answer, controlling it is.

[57special]

I totally agree the problem lies with the referees inability to call the rule book as it has been written for years. In fact, most or all of these "new rules" are not changes to the rule book, they are changes to the penalty time served and now suspensions.

I think your "blood bath is coming" prediction is wrong. There is plenty of passing and heads-up play at Pee-Wee hockey. So not sure what you're watching. AND there was plenty of body contact last year at PW. I think you are 100% wrong that Bantams will be a blood bath.

A and B1 hockey is generally played with a higher skill level than B2 and C. The lower skill levels are where I see more risk of injury. Both from poorly skilled hitters and poorly skilled hittees. I would be in favor of removing checking from the C level at all age groups.

Agree on the non checking for C's. I worry about some of the big,overweight kids who can barely skate as much as the smaller boys.

[BadgerBob82]

The Enlightened One: I think you are overstating things and next year will be fine. Keep something in mind, EVERYONE will have played minimal check PW the past 2 years. Yes, the super-duper AAA summer kids will have been exposed to checking. But they are tremendously skilled hockey players that don't hit much anyway. The rest of the kids that are merely average will not know how to check anyway since they are just overgrown squirts.

You did bring up a good point in your last post. Aside from bad (and fat) referees. USA and MN Hockey supporting the 1 referee 2 linesman system has contributed to bad referees missing half the calls in a game.

Until USA and MN Hockey require 2 referees on the ice at every level, all the rule changes in the world won't matter.

Maybe D6 should take the lead and require 2 referees for each game?

[SCBlueLiner]

Back when I refereed the best system to work under up to Bantams is a two man system with officials calling both the lines and penalties. That way you had officials enforcing penalties both up on the play and behind the play where chippy stuff tends to happen.

Four officials on the ice (2 line, 2 refs) is overkill for a kids game and it will also increase the costs for officials.

[BadgerBob82]

Yep, the two man system is both cost effective and provides the best coverage of the ice. I can see Bantam having 2 ref - 1 linesman, but usually the linesman is not experienced enough and the 2 refs are forever waving off and calling the lines anyway.

2 man system provides cost effective player safety!

1 Referee system says that calling the lines is 2 times more important than player safety.

[GoldenBear]

I was at a game last night; a kid got a 5 minute major for boarding; it was a hard check that the ref thought was too hard and he gave him boarding. In my opinion nothing wrong with check; big kid against little kid; little kid went flying. Does this count per the district six rules; the rules you quoted state checking from behind. GB

[BadgerBob82]

Rule 603 Boarding
(a) A minor or major penalty shall be assessed to any player who
commits any action that causes an opponent to be thrown
violently into the boards.
(b) A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be
assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of
boarding

[MrBoDangles]

Ahhh, the answer is so simple. Make everyone play AAA hockey year round and there will be no problems moving from PW to Bantam!

Another example that we all owe the future of hockey to spring/summer/fall AAA programs.

Will FOUR Summers of checking help a sixth grade 2000 born before he enters bantams?

Four Summers(100++ games) of checking Hockey and will never have had the chance to check in Winter Hockey until bantams?

I'll bet the Summer playing kids will be much more prepared.

[SnowedIn]

I was at a game last night; a kid got a 5 minute major for boarding; it was a hard check that the ref thought was too hard and he gave him boarding. In my opinion nothing wrong with check; big kid against little kid; little kid went flying. Does this count per the district six rules; the rules you quoted state checking from behind. GB

Not that you do, but some people think that boarding is similar to checking from behind and its not.

A good coach will instruct his skaters to stay out of the danger zone (2-4 feet from the boards). If you are skating to the boards, you go in at an angle to prevent getting checked from behind. Once you get to the boards, you stay close to them because much less pain and chance of getting injured when you are tight to the boards. If you are gliding or standing 2-4 feet from the boards you are in a really bad spot because a strong check you send you flying into the boards out of control head first, limb first, at a twisted angle.... Very high chance of getting hurt bad. At a minimum will be very painfull.

So as the checker, you are required to check up and hold back on your hit when a player with the puck is in this danger zone. A big check, expecially on a smaller opponent, will most definitely result in a violent toss into the boards and you will get a boarding call against you.

Good rule.

[Bluewhitefan]

Rule 603 Boarding
(a) A minor or major penalty shall be assessed to any player who
commits any action that causes an opponent to be thrown
violently into the boards.
(b) A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be
assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of
boarding

I'm always a little amused by the "big kid vs. little kid" argument. The rule is to protect players - all players - from serious injury. If a big kid checks a little kid and he goes flying into the boards - that's boarding. The rule makes no mention of the relative sizes of the players. It's up to the big kid to stop if what he is about to do is dangerous and could result in serious injur

[BadgerBob82]

Interesting you brought that up, because the head contact rule does specifically say, no matter the size difference. I believe it says a check must be made from shoulder to hip by the shoulder to hip. If bigger player's shoulder is same height and hits smaller player's head, head contact is called. Do it on purpose, injure the kid, a major and suspension is likely. (youtube most of Raffi Torres hits)

FOUR summers of AAA hockey will definately prepare the little guy to turtle in Bantams.

[MrBoDangles]

Interesting you brought that up, because the head contact rule does specifically say, no matter the size difference. I believe it says a check must be made from shoulder to hip by the shoulder to hip. If bigger player's shoulder is same height and hits smaller player's head, head contact is called. Do it on purpose, injure the kid, a major and suspension is likely. (youtube most of Raffi Torres hits)

FOUR summers of AAA hockey will definately prepare the little guy to turtle in Bantams.

And your little guy will be an unskilled victim.

[HockeyDad41]

Interesting you brought that up, because the head contact rule does specifically say, no matter the size difference. I believe it says a check must be made from shoulder to hip by the shoulder to hip. If bigger player's shoulder is same height and hits smaller player's head, head contact is called. Do it on purpose, injure the kid, a major and suspension is likely. (youtube most of Raffi Torres hits)

FOUR summers of AAA hockey will definately prepare the little guy to turtle in Bantams.

And your little guy will be an unskilled victim.

Is any thread safe from the two of you?

[The Enlightened One]

The Enlightened One: I think you are overstating things and next year will be fine. Keep something in mind, EVERYONE will have played minimal check PW the past 2 years. Yes, the super-duper AAA summer kids will have been exposed to checking. But they are tremendously skilled hockey players that don't hit much anyway. The rest of the kids that are merely average will not know how to check anyway since they are just overgrown squirts.

You did bring up a good point in your last post. Aside from bad (and fat) referees. USA and MN Hockey supporting the 1 referee 2 linesman system has contributed to bad referees missing half the calls in a game.

Until USA and MN Hockey require 2 referees on the ice at every level, all the rule changes in the world won't matter.

Maybe D6 should take the lead and require 2 referees for each game?

I really hope that I am over stating it but am also afraid that I am not. The no checking in C teams works if you have C teams but if you don't then you put the C kids on the B team and go take on those bigger teams who have C teams and B teams and your "C" kids get creams.

2 Refs would be great to have going as you are right about most of the chippy dumb stuff happening behind the play or away from the puck.

I am going to be very curious about how all of this shakes out, hopefully it will work as it was sold to us but I am also afraid that it won't.

[pineline]

District 6 voted last night to NOT adopt the more stringent Check from Behind penalties that were initially adopted in June that included game and season suspensions.

[YouthHockeyHub]

I was at the meeting last night. For the record, it was not voted on. But I suspect that by polling each member association afterward, that before the end of the week that the stricter rules will be repealed.

Each Association President is required to send in their vote via email.

Just about every association already had a story of how unfair this was to the D6 kids versus non...by the end of the 30 minute discussion, it was clear that no one wanted these more stringent policies.

THIS WILL BE REPEALED.

Note: Brad Hewitt did say that MNH has a proposal on the table to be voted on in December to adopt similar penalties as what D6 currently has as their policy. He said that he expects that to be voted down as well.

[woodley]

Rule 603 Boarding
(a) A minor or major penalty shall be assessed to any player who
commits any action that causes an opponent to be thrown
violently into the boards.
(b) A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be
assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of
boarding

If we could only follow this rule. . . however, Minnesota Hockey has mandated that any boarding is a major. . . and requires a game report.

[QuackerTracker]

Sorry I am late to comment on this one but...

Last time I checked the system used for JV hockey is the 2 man system and all the penalty time changes where due to a hit in a JV game. The 2 man system is flawed and should not be used at any level where you have the possiblity of fisticuffs.

Yep, the two man system is both cost effective and provides the best coverage of the ice. I can see Bantam having 2 ref - 1 linesman, but usually the linesman is not experienced enough and the 2 refs are forever waving off and calling the lines anyway.

2 man system provides cost effective player safety!

1 Referee system says that calling the lines is 2 times more important than player safety.

[BadgerBob82]

Quacker:

Not sure anything was said about fighting?

And I have never seen a JV game with only 2 man system? Always seen the same refs as for the Varsity game. 2 refs - 1 linesman.

Youth hockey promotes or mandates a 1 ref - 2 linesman system. Utterly ridiculous system at any level.

[QuackerTracker]

Quacker:

Not sure anything was said about fighting?

And I have never seen a JV game with only 2 man system? Always seen the same refs as for the Varsity game. 2 refs - 1 linesman.

Youth hockey promotes or mandates a 1 ref - 2 linesman system. Utterly ridiculous system at any level.

Yes there are 2 of the 3 officials association for HS in the metro that use 3 man for JV games however the other does not and neither do the outstate associations. The game that Jabs was injured in was being done 2 man. You have no facts to back up your argument of player safty with the 2 offical system.

Do you do anything to change things but complain on a message board? Do you get out and work with local state a national associations to make things better? You must know better than the NHL, USA hockey and hockey candada. They all want officials to be trained in the 1-2 system. But you are smarter than everyone that runs these orgs and know so much about hockey. Have you submitted the proposal to USA hockey for the rule change? I can tell you that you havent, but I can also tell you that the 2-1 system has been a rule change option for the last 20 years and has only been adopted by the NFHS and D3 college hockey. D1 tried it in the 80 and it was gone before one season. The NHL tried it in the 80s and it was gone before the preseason was over. You THINK you know so much about officiating but you have never studied it at a high level. Bantam A hockey is not a high level of hockey.

[BadgerBob82]

Quacker:

USA Jr hockey still uses the 1 ref - 2 linesmen. High school, D1, Minor Pro, NHL, International and who know how many upper levels use the 2 - 2 system. (Not sure about D3?)

You could have had 10 referees on the ice, and it wouldn't have STOPPED the Jab's hit from happening. But both refs saw it and made the call.

Cost is an issue for a 2-2 system at the youth level and quite frankly it isn't needed. 2 refs for youth games is perfect. I can see 2 ref - 1 linesman for Bantam A.

As for my advocating for a change from allowing the 1 ref - 2 linesmen. I have proposed this at the District level. Shot down by District Official guy. Written letters to MN Hockey Referee director and was given the lip service that USA promotes and only recognizes the 1-2 system. I have written e-mails at the USA level and received canned/form responses thanking me for my interest in USA Hockey.

I was a youth and HS referee for 10+ years prior to my kids getting of youth hockey age.

As for supporting facts, not sure stats are kept on calls missed with a 1 ref system? To be fair, not sure stats are kept on calls missed with a 2 ref system either. Also, not sure if stats are kept on missed calls resulting in player injury due to illegal actions? But I can tell you that I see way more missed calls watching a game with 1 ref vs. a game with 2 refs.

I suppose you're the guy that likes 1 ref to get more "consistent calls"? Or you're the guy that tells his kid to slash a guy in the ankles when the ref isn't looking?

[QuackerTracker]

Quacker:

USA Jr hockey still uses the 1 ref - 2 linesmen. High school, D1, Minor Pro, NHL, International and who know how many upper levels use the 2 - 2 system. (Not sure about D3?)

You could have had 10 referees on the ice, and it wouldn't have STOPPED the Jab's hit from happening. But both refs saw it and made the call.

Cost is an issue for a 2-2 system at the youth level and quite frankly it isn't needed. 2 refs for youth games is perfect. I can see 2 ref - 1 linesman for Bantam A.

As for my advocating for a change from allowing the 1 ref - 2 linesmen. I have proposed this at the District level. Shot down by District Official guy. Written letters to MN Hockey Referee director and was given the lip service that USA promotes and only recognizes the 1-2 system. I have written e-mails at the USA level and received canned/form responses thanking me for my interest in USA Hockey.

I was a youth and HS referee for 10+ years prior to my kids getting of youth hockey age.

As for supporting facts, not sure stats are kept on calls missed with a 1 ref system? To be fair, not sure stats are kept on calls missed with a 2 ref system either. Also, not sure if stats are kept on missed calls resulting in player injury due to illegal actions? But I can tell you that I see way more missed calls watching a game with 1 ref vs. a game with 2 refs.

I suppose you're the guy that likes 1 ref to get more "consistent calls"? Or you're the guy that tells his kid to slash a guy in the ankles when the ref isn't looking?

No, I am the guy that studies the game, trains like the players and try to hang out with officials that work levels I will never get to. The unfortunate part is that I am part of the 1% of officals that do this. The problem is there are far too many games to have quality officials for every game. The 1- 2 system when worked with 3 well trained and studied officals is the best system for the youth level. Having linesman that know the rules and can assist the ref in getting things correct make the system work. The 2-1 system is flawed with refs watching for icing and offsides which too easily distracts them from watching players. A slash to the shin pads behind play in a Bantam game usually does not result in anything more. If it does with quality linesman the proper penalties can be assessed. If it's a major penalty it can be called by the linesman. I have called 2 this year that my refs have missed. The system works better than the 2-1 when used correctly.

The girl that got injured last year in a varsity game where there was not a penalty called had the 2-1 system in use. Again nothing was called. The only answer is to have quality officals for every game, but that can't happen. A sh**y official is bad in any system.

[BadgerBob82]

Not starting another debate, I was not there, but most sources have said the injury to the girl was not a penalty. In other words, non-call was the right call.

But totally agree with you "The only answer is to have quality officals for every game, but that can't happen. A sh**y official is bad in any system."

And my point remains a sh**y official in a 1-2 is awful when the sh**y guy is the only referee on the ice.

By having 2 guys assigned to call off-side and icing, where are the priorities? Oh right, if they are "good linesmen", they can help the ref make the right calls? If there are 3 guys on the ice, then have 2 refs calling the game and 1 or 2 linesman like every other league in the world has.

[luvuvgame]

Oh sure ask parents to pay more money for a fourth official to be on the ice so their kids can be kicked out of more games...haha. Just kidding!