MSHSL Major Penalty Changes take effect 1/16

Older Topics, Not the current discussion

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

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:58 am

BBgunner wrote:If the Wayzata player does not finish through the check then this is not a penalty but he made no attempt to hold up and finished through the check. By definition this is the ideal open ice check from behind. The opponents head even makes contact first in that whipping like motion that makes this hit dangerous.
The referee made the correct call and whether it was last week or this week the same call should be made and the only difference is time in the box.
So say what you want about not liking the new enforcement but that player should have known better and never should have finished through the check if he made any attempt to hold up it more than likely is not a penalty at all. IMO of course
I need to look again.
My thought was he just put his hands up as a natural reaction to keep the contact from happening. He continued going backwards.

Not saying the ref should see it this way as it happens a lot faster and from a different angle.

Just saying from experience being on the ice that when contact happens the reaction is to keep your balance and minimize the effect of the contact.

To me it looked like incidental contact.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:01 pm

Not to change the topic, but regarding the Privette girl that was injured; was it determined it was NOT the result of contact (or at least any illegal contact)?

I thought I read that, but am not sure.

Anyone else read that or
see the incident?

Also, how is she doing?

C-dad
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:47 pm

Post by C-dad » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:34 pm

elliott70 wrote:Not to change the topic, but regarding the Privette girl that was injured; was it determined it was NOT the result of contact (or at least any illegal contact)?

I thought I read that, but am not sure.

Anyone else read that or
see the incident?

Also, how is she doing?
The refs' report stated that there was no contact. The Privette parents dispute that. There is a video of the incident, but it is hard to make anything out for certain because the net is between the camera and any contact that may have occured.

inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:36 pm

elliott70 wrote:Not to change the topic, but regarding the Privette girl that was injured; was it determined it was NOT the result of contact (or at least any illegal contact)?

I thought I read that, but am not sure.

Anyone else read that or
see the incident?

Also, how is she doing?
This is the report you may have heard about.

http://www.mngirlshockeyhub.com/news_ar ... _id=115187

seek & destroy
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:38 pm

Post by seek & destroy » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:53 pm

TheClipper wrote:Seek,

You say you hate dirty play, you say we need to clean up the game, you say we need to make the game safer, but you clearly don't want to do this too quickly. How, exactly, would you make the game safer? What exactly is your time frame? Gimme a number.

Knee jerk reaction? Aren't two devastating spinal cord injuries in one week enough reason for change?

The MSHSL issues a blizzard of memos every week. How is one more going to make a difference? If someone was threatening your physical well being would you send him a memo?

Every night, in every rink in the state, referees threaten to call a close game Every one of these games looks exactly like the previous game, and nothing has changed in twenty years.
I would make the game safer by making sure the refs are encouraged to call penalties by the rules (already in place). I would also encourage the refs to make the tough calls including the 5 minute major as already written. I would tell the coaches to keep their mouths shut (or they will get a penatly) and encourage fans to support cleaning up the game.

My time frame for everything above is immediate. It already had started BUT the MSHSL jumped in early to change the game and take the ref discretion out of the equation. In my opinion, that was not a good decision and, at very least, should have waited until the off season to have a full discussion and to give option 1 above a chance to work.

Why would it possibly work now when it hasn't worked (according to you) for 20 years? You answered it yourself...because two tragic accidents in one week is enough reason for change.The media attention has been HUGE and will likely continue at least through the State tourney. There is a very close eye being given to head contact (in all sports) and now checking from behind has been added in our sport. It has been all over the papers this year and is now reached a firestorm due to these tragic accidents. That attention would have (in my opinion) made this a different time then any other time in the last 20 years and caused support of making tough calls.

I also agree with others that next year, when the glare of the spotlight is gone, refs will start avoiding having such a big impact on the game by having to call 5 minute majors. It will be critical that we keep reminding them (and supporting them) that they need to make the right calls all the time. I think the old set up was good enough and could have worked with some encouragement...but now that they've made these changes, we have to support the new set up.

One final point, in the video above you can hear the fan complaining about the call. I think it was the right call but you can already see that fans are quick to have a change of heart when the calls start going against them. Being a ref is not an easy job!

MN93
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:48 am

Post by MN93 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:07 pm

After seeing 2 games with the rule changes I think the MSHSL really messed this one up. I get the whole thing why they did what the did and i think what happened to the Benilede kid was really sad but i feel they really made things worse. In the first game I saw the refs had a agenda to make a statement and had some horrible calls that were boarder line penalities that resulted in majors and DQs the second game there was probably 10 calls that could have been majors and not 1 call was made.
I agree with some of the previous posts that something needs to be done, whats going to happen is all the good refs are going to say screw this and leave the game and you are going to have a bunch of bad refs dictating kids future and having major factors in deciding games I dont know if anyone realizes that if you get a DQ you are out for the next game if you have another infraction that results in a DQ you will be out for 4 games with no chance to appeal even if its is a terrible call ,what will happen is kids that have any chance of playing juniors or college will start leaving school early in groves and I have never supported this but after what I have seen this week I will certainly understand why they have left. Hopefully they fix this.

Mite-dad
Posts: 1233
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:16 am

Post by Mite-dad » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:30 pm

muckandgrind wrote:
TheClipper wrote:
these were FREAK occurances. Extremely rare in the world of hockey. No need for the knee-jerk rush to implement these rule changes other than public relations.
No. No. No. The extent of the injuries were extreme, and thank goodness they're rare. The actions that caused them, however, were unacceptable and all too common. Zero tolerance measures work extremely well, even if they do result in whining by the punished party.
This is why the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes into play:

Because of "zero tolerance" and EVERY call of checking from behind, head contact or boarding will be five minutes REGARDLESS of whether or not the call was the result of intentional or incidental contact, you will start seeing referees swallow their whistles if they feel the contact was "borderline". Whereas in the past, they would've made the call most of the time, now doubt will start to creep into their mind and they will question as to whether or not the hit was such as to warrant a drastic and game changing penalty.

These refs are human just like us and will be feeling the pressure. Right now, it's all KOOM-BY-AH, refs are calling everything because the spotlight is glaring....but next year and the years after the spotlight will dim and you will see MORE viscous hits because we'll see fewer and fewer calls made. And then, it will be back to the drawing board.

I'm all for cleaning the up the game....I just doubt that these changes will do anything in the long run but make matter worse.
Since you are so sure about the future and how refs will make calls, could you tell me also where the S&P 500 will end up next year?

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:42 pm

Mite-dad wrote:
muckandgrind wrote:
TheClipper wrote:
these were FREAK occurances. Extremely rare in the world of hockey. No need for the knee-jerk rush to implement these rule changes other than public relations.
No. No. No. The extent of the injuries were extreme, and thank goodness they're rare. The actions that caused them, however, were unacceptable and all too common. Zero tolerance measures work extremely well, even if they do result in whining by the punished party.
This is why the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes into play:

Because of "zero tolerance" and EVERY call of checking from behind, head contact or boarding will be five minutes REGARDLESS of whether or not the call was the result of intentional or incidental contact, you will start seeing referees swallow their whistles if they feel the contact was "borderline". Whereas in the past, they would've made the call most of the time, now doubt will start to creep into their mind and they will question as to whether or not the hit was such as to warrant a drastic and game changing penalty.

These refs are human just like us and will be feeling the pressure. Right now, it's all KOOM-BY-AH, refs are calling everything because the spotlight is glaring....but next year and the years after the spotlight will dim and you will see MORE viscous hits because we'll see fewer and fewer calls made. And then, it will be back to the drawing board.

I'm all for cleaning the up the game....I just doubt that these changes will do anything in the long run but make matter worse.
Since you are so sure about the future and how refs will make calls, could you tell me also where the S&P 500 will end up next year?
Hey, it's just my opinion backed up by a lifetime of experience in observing human nature and the pitfalls of hasty decision-making.

It's usually the case that the best chance at long term success of any decision made is usually preceeded by a deliberate and thoughtful decision-making process, of which this wasn't.

BBgunner
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:06 am

Post by BBgunner » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:46 pm

Elliot I just watched it 3 more times and it still looks like IMO he finishes through like he plants and drives forward. That combined with the way the kid hits the ice I would not blame the official for making this call. Now I am completely impartial in this and if it were a team I loved or hated maybe I would feel differently but I would like to believe that not to be the case.
The whole topic and change will take some getting used to and adjustment by players, officials, coaches, and fans. I still believe it was a good change and one that will help prevent injuries. I also hope that all kids remain in school and go to JR's after High School. If this does make an impact in kids leaving early I really think it will only be a temporary thing as kids from youth may have already had this rule in youth if they adopt it so it will be common place.

nofinish
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:44 pm

Post by nofinish » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:08 pm

Granted a zero tolerance policy will get the defender in this case a penalty. The offensive player still has a resonsiblity to protect himself a bit more by not turning his back to a defender he knows is there, he had options as well.
I agree it will take everyone some time to adjust and figure it out.

HShockeywatcher
Posts: 6848
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm

Post by HShockeywatcher » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:54 pm

BBgunner wrote:Elliot I just watched it 3 more times and it still looks like IMO he finishes through like he plants and drives forward. That combined with the way the kid hits the ice I would not blame the official for making this call. Now I am completely impartial in this and if it were a team I loved or hated maybe I would feel differently but I would like to believe that not to be the case.
The whole topic and change will take some getting used to and adjustment by players, officials, coaches, and fans. I still believe it was a good change and one that will help prevent injuries. I also hope that all kids remain in school and go to JR's after High School. If this does make an impact in kids leaving early I really think it will only be a temporary thing as kids from youth may have already had this rule in youth if they adopt it so it will be common place.
I don't see this affecting players leaving early for juniors; the players that have the opportunity to play for a juniors team are not going to be the ones who are sitting in the box for majors regularly.

"Oh, you're missing your HS season because you can't play by the rules and have gotten game misconducts multiple times, sure come play for me."
If that's really how it works, I will stand corrected, but I'm guessing they want the talented players who aren't concerned with this change because they aren't doing it anyway.

almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:25 pm

HShockeywatcher wrote: "Oh, you're missing your HS season because you can't play by the rules and have gotten game misconducts multiple times, sure come play for me."
If that's really how it works, I will stand corrected, but I'm guessing they want the talented players who aren't concerned with this change because they aren't doing it anyway.


No, what "they" all seem to want are talented players who are 6'3" and 200 lbs. Why is that, I wonder? Does size and strength make you skate faster, or handle the puck better?

HShockeywatcher
Posts: 6848
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm

Post by HShockeywatcher » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:41 pm

almostashappy wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote: "Oh, you're missing your HS season because you can't play by the rules and have gotten game misconducts multiple times, sure come play for me."
If that's really how it works, I will stand corrected, but I'm guessing they want the talented players who aren't concerned with this change because they aren't doing it anyway.


No, what "they" all seem to want are talented players who are 6'3" and 200 lbs. Why is that, I wonder? Does size and strength make you skate faster, or handle the puck better?
Bingo; they want the good players who are also big. Like I eluded to earlier; watch SSM play. They are a very physical team, but they don't take cheap shots, they just play good hockey. Those are the players they want...I'd assume.

MN93
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:48 am

You just don't get it--Seniors are screwed

Post by MN93 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:57 pm

almostashappy wrote:
HShockeywatcher wrote: "Oh, you're missing your HS season because you can't play by the rules and have gotten game misconducts multiple times, sure come play for me."
If that's really how it works, I will stand corrected, but I'm guessing they want the talented players who aren't concerned with this change because they aren't doing it anyway.


No, what "they" all seem to want are talented players who are 6'3" and 200 lbs. Why is that, I wonder? Does size and strength make you skate faster, or handle the puck better?
Totally agree 'almostashappy', the big kids are really screwed. I'd bet you anything that if you looked up the height of the players that got majors or DQ's the majority of them would be over 6.0 feet tall.

The good players that are now seniors have played varsity hockey for 2 1/2 years under the old rules. Now, half way through their senior season they change the rules on a weekend with league games coming up on Tuesday night. It's clear that the refs went way overboard on the first night of games and called a much higher percentage of majors and DQ's.

So the unlucky kids that got a DQ on the first night of the rule change are the "Examples" and they have to sit out the next game, OK. But the TRUE penalty isn't the one game suspension but the fact that if they have another DQ, then they are out for FOUR games! There are only about 8 games left in the season, so they basically are done for the season. After getting a DQ, how can a kid possibly go out and play a regular game when he has the threat of a 4 game suspension over his head? A bad call or ref that has it in for him could end his season, so he'd be afraid to death to touch anyone.
Also, the DQ penalities cannot be appealed. You can have a film of the game and argue that the hit only deserved a 5 minute major and not a DQ but it doesn't matter, the call stands and cannot be appealed, so ONE REF has the ultimate power to essentially end a seniors season.

So 'highschoolhockeywatcher', how can you possibly know if all of the DQ calls made to date were legitimate or deserved? Because we all know that all calls are consistent from ref to ref and from game to game. So all of these unlucky "Example" kids that got a DQ are rotten kids and cheapshot hockey players and should be banned from playing high school hockey in MN forever?

These new rules have ruined MN high school hockey.

karl(east)
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:21 pm

HShockeywatcher wrote:I don't see this affecting players leaving early for juniors; the players that have the opportunity to play for a juniors team are not going to be the ones who are sitting in the box for majors regularly.
This is a tiny sample size, but I've seen the major+game DQ assessed twice so far: once to an East player who is a definite D1 prospect; he is neither big nor much-penaltized. While channel-surfing between periods during the Edina-Tonka game last night, I saw a penalty assessed to a D1-committed Eagan player. So yes, they are nailing some high-profile players.

It was clear that the rule change affected gameplay in the Edina-Tonka match-up. I am not going to claim the rule change has ruined anything quite yet, but we need to watch this very closely over the next few weeks.

My reaction so far: I can live with the major penalties; what bothers me are the DQs. I think the major is punishment enough, and in the short HS season, a 1-game DQ (and the threat of a 4-game DQ) are big blows to any team. But I'll try to be open-minded and see how players and referees adapt in the coming weeks.

Does anyone know how submitting the film works? I know East was sending in a tape of the hit that DQ'd their player in protest, but it's not clear to me what this achieves.

almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:16 pm

karl(east) wrote: This is a tiny sample size, but I've seen the major+game DQ assessed twice so far: once to an East player who is a definite D1 prospect; he is neither big nor much-penaltized. While channel-surfing between periods during the Edina-Tonka game last night, I saw a penalty assessed to a D1-committed Eagan player. So yes, they are nailing some high-profile players.
The 5-minute major given to the Eagan kid didn't have a game DQ attached to it.

Would have been even more egregious if it did, since the boarding call was made on a hip check to a player skating down the boards with the puck. The "victim's" head didn't hit the glass...he hardly broke stride. Would have been an iffy 2-minute boarding call a week ago. But it was called in the first period...got the statement made early to the players and coaches.

HShockeywatcher
Posts: 6848
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm

Post by HShockeywatcher » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:05 am

karl(east) wrote:This is a tiny sample size, but I've seen the major+game DQ assessed twice so far: once to an East player who is a definite D1 prospect; he is neither big nor much-penaltized. While channel-surfing between periods during the Edina-Tonka game last night, I saw a penalty assessed to a D1-committed Eagan player. So yes, they are nailing some high-profile players.

My reaction so far: I can live with the major penalties; what bothers me are the DQs. I think the major is punishment enough, and in the short HS season, a 1-game DQ (and the threat of a 4-game DQ) are big blows to any team. But I'll try to be open-minded and see how players and referees adapt in the coming weeks.
Do you know when the DQs are typically being assessed? Is it more for majors that are happening in the last 5 min of the game?

My whole point was that it seemed like someone was saying a player would all of a sudden be spending the whole game in the box now and so just decide to leave for juniors. Which seems far fetched. You gave the example of a player for East who isn't penalized much; is he now thinking of leaving for juniors because he spent a lot of time in the box? I doubt it, I'd bet he, him specifically, probably won't be in the box for a major any time soon.

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:34 am

We have a saying in football that if it's going to be a major infraction then the kids grandmother had better agree with the call.

The game I was at Thursday had a defenseman throw a check where his stick was on the ice and his forearm never left his side but he was given 5 minutes for head contact because the skater had his head down trying to squeeze between the defenseman and the boards and the defenseman pinched him off. That left the defenseman to either let the kid go or risk a penalty, the kid did everything correctly but had to sit for 5 minutes.

We're running the risk of sacrificing common sense to protect kids from what they really can't be protected from....chance. We outlaw running red lights but that doesn't mean someone isn't either going intentionally run one for whatever reason or someone just makes an error and runs one. No matter what we legislate bad things will still happen, it's not like there was a rash of catostrophic injuries prior to the rule change.

woodley
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:14 am

Post by woodley » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:04 am

OK, here's one. . . . . if we are so concerned about concussions (see earlier discussion in this thread), how many mouthguard penalties has anyone seen called this week? Why aren't they penalized as a minor that affects team's play? Instead, if a ref even says a word, it's "I really mean it this time. . . . no seriously, this time is REALLY your last warning. . " Ask any medical practitioner, they will tell you a properly fitted and worn mouthguard has significant impact in reducing injury.

Bottom line, what has happened with these rule changes is the MSHSL being high-profile, high-exposure, responders. Done as a knee jerk reaction, having huge impact on the way the game is played, with absolutely no evidence or study. I can only imagine what high school football could look like next season.

karl(east)
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:28 am

HShockeywatcher wrote:
karl(east) wrote:This is a tiny sample size, but I've seen the major+game DQ assessed twice so far: once to an East player who is a definite D1 prospect; he is neither big nor much-penaltized. While channel-surfing between periods during the Edina-Tonka game last night, I saw a penalty assessed to a D1-committed Eagan player. So yes, they are nailing some high-profile players.

My reaction so far: I can live with the major penalties; what bothers me are the DQs. I think the major is punishment enough, and in the short HS season, a 1-game DQ (and the threat of a 4-game DQ) are big blows to any team. But I'll try to be open-minded and see how players and referees adapt in the coming weeks.
Do you know when the DQs are typically being assessed? Is it more for majors that are happening in the last 5 min of the game?

My whole point was that it seemed like someone was saying a player would all of a sudden be spending the whole game in the box now and so just decide to leave for juniors. Which seems far fetched. You gave the example of a player for East who isn't penalized much; is he now thinking of leaving for juniors because he spent a lot of time in the box? I doubt it, I'd bet he, him specifically, probably won't be in the box for a major any time soon.
The East penalty was near the end of the game, though not the very end. (The full 5 minutes were served.)

The Eagan check, which I am glad to hear was not a game DQ, was in the first period.

I mostly agree about the effect of the rule change on departures for juniors...while the penalty may enter into the equation somewhere, I doubt it will be the primary consideration for anyone thinking about leaving.

mulefarm
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:11 am

Before the rule change, was HS hockey really out of control and dangerous? If it was, why didn't the hockey community request changes? It will always have a danger element and injuries will occur, some worse than others.

rudy
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:25 am

before and after

Post by rudy » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:33 am

Mulefarm, you make a good point about the lack of concern for years before the injury and the substantial response by the mshsl afterward.

There really was no debate afoot that "something has to be done" to fix high school hockey. then, one player makes a bad decision, a terrible thing happens and the sport in every corner of the state is changed and a legitimate tactic in competition is essentially shelved.

also, that change comes without any research, no knowledge that these "fixes" will do what is intended. no one did their homework -- the mshsl admits that -- and there was no intention to do any research. i suspect that there is still no plan to do any research during this interim enforcement period, unless I've missed that announcement.

As the players find where the physical "line" is going forward, I hope that fair and proper physical play will return to something closer to what it was about a month ago. I'm not saying let's see running guys again, but there are hockey checks that seem to be gone from high school hockey that are well within the rules.

As one varsity player on a prominent team said after his most recent game:

"It was like playing a girls game." (Sorry, girls).

almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:15 am

woodley wrote:OK, here's one. . . . . if we are so concerned about concussions (see earlier discussion in this thread), how many mouthguard penalties has anyone seen called this week? Why aren't they penalized as a minor that affects team's play? Instead, if a ref even says a word, it's "I really mean it this time. . . . no seriously, this time is REALLY your last warning. . " Ask any medical practitioner, they will tell you a properly fitted and worn mouthguard has significant impact in reducing injury.
Can somebody explain why the refs let such an obvious infraction go uncalled as part of the unwritten code? Mouthguards are useless when they are dangling out of a kid's mouth. And properly worn mouthguards aren't going to alter the game, right?

Funny how some of the same kids who refuse to wear their mouth guards in hockey will shove them in all the way when they know it will be called on the lacrosse field. High school lacrosse officials do make that call...and it's a two minute non-releasable penalty (much more like a hockey 5-min major than a 2-min minor).

HShockeywatcher
Posts: 6848
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm

Post by HShockeywatcher » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:14 pm

almostashappy wrote:Funny how some of the same kids who refuse to wear their mouth guards in hockey will shove them in all the way when they know it will be called on the lacrosse field. High school lacrosse officials do make that call...and it's a two minute non-releasable penalty (much more like a hockey 5-min major than a 2-min minor).
Good call. This is a good point that goes to show that kids do, in fact, respond to rules being called.
mulefarm wrote:Before the rule change, was HS hockey really out of control and dangerous? If it was, why didn't the hockey community request changes? It will always have a danger element and injuries will occur, some worse than others.
Not wanting a change doesn't mean one isn't needed. I can think of numerous analogies to life, but I won't go there. It has always simply been accepted as a "dangerous sport" because of the hits that occur. Much of this occurs because of the macho attitude of the game that comes from not being called for breaking the rules. Why not take much of that out and produce better hockey players?
rudy wrote:also, that change comes without any research, no knowledge that these "fixes" will do what is intended. no one did their homework -- the mshsl admits that -- and there was no intention to do any research. i suspect that there is still no plan to do any research during this interim enforcement period, unless I've missed that announcement.
And I haven't done any research to make the claim that first liners on average will be scoring the most goals/points on their teams; would you disagree with me? You don't need to do research beyond watching one HS team sport game to know that the rules of the game aren't being called, and even if they were, it's not a deterrent to not happening, which is what the MSHSL states they want.


What is being missed here is that the coaches and the refs came together and wanted this.

rudy
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:25 am

rules

Post by rudy » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:59 pm

HS Watcher wrote:

Much of this occurs because of the macho attitude of the game that comes from not being called for breaking the rules. Why not take much of that out and produce better hockey players?

Really? Much, as in a majority, of physical play is inspired by machoness? where is the data you have to support that? or is it merely anecdotal or a sense that you have felt but apparently have never expressed until now? I think there's at least an equal chance that intense physical play is inspired by a desire to win. Isn't it more logical that a coach is telling a player to play physically -- and avoid penalties -- for the benefit of the team, rather than saying, "Joey, go crush that kid. you'll feel more like a man."

HS Watcher wrote:

And I haven't done any research to make the claim that first liners on average will be scoring the most goals/points on their teams; would you disagree with me? You don't need to do research beyond watching one HS team sport game to know that the rules of the game aren't being called, and even if they were, it's not a deterrent to not happening, which is what the MSHSL states they want.


Really, you only need to watch one game to know how thousands of high school hockey games are being officiated? If only it were that easy, supervisors of officials around the world would have a lot less to do.

Let's not be afraid of collecting knowledge based on fact and use that knowledge in a tempered atmosphere, rather than reacting without facts over a handful of days based on feeling and a cascade of sentiment to "do something."

HS Watcher wrote:

What is being missed here is that the coaches and the refs came together and wanted this.

Really? When was this meeting 6-7 weeks into the HS season, and how did so many coaches find the time to leave their programs and make their views heard? How did the officials find the time to stop officiating, en masse, meet with these coaches on hiatus? Where was this meeting? Who ran it, and where the minutes from this meeting? What was the breakdown for and against? Could it actually have been unanimous among coaches and refs? or for those who wanted a cautious approach find the timing so close to the injury that it would prove difficult to speak up, for fear of looking insensitive?

gee, this is just the type of debate that is refreshing, engaging, sincere and without personal attacks. Too bad it didnt occur before the "fixes" were put in place.

Post Reply