Why there's no checking in girls hockey....

[Just4Fun]

One of the dangerous aspects of the girls no-check game is that many players get hurt because they assume that they won't get checked. I have seen quite a few players get injured (fortunately not seriously) as a result of going into the corners staight on thniking they are not going to get hit. The girls have to be coached to always assume they are going to get hit, so they can protect themselves in case they do get checked.

Xwildfan - so true!! But if they do get knocked illegally the refs need to send a message. NOT just two minutes. Check from behind - 2 & 10. A flagrant check or whatever by the boards (or in the middle of the ice) a double minor or major. Too many two minutes.

[whos_it]

Just my opinion but until you introduce checking to the game it should be called something like ........................... puckslide, puckjuggling, "touch"-hockey or "flag"-hockey. Checking is part of the game. Football is football unless it is "flag"-ball or "touch"-football. You see, without tackling, it needs an adjective in front of it. This doesn't only effect womans hockey but also Mites and Squirts boys hockey. If the fear is of getting hurt then it should carry over to young mens or adult mens hockey as well. They can get hurt playing the game also but without that little risk, the game would not be hockey as we know it today.

You start a league tommorrow called the TNHL (touch national hockey league) and see how many games sell out at the X for several years in a row.

To make a long story short, woman should check as well. This message board subject should have been call "Should woman's hockey alow checking"? The premice in the begining of this post was that checking would cause more injury when the incident in question was far from "checking".

[keepitreal]

There sould be checking.

It would force the players to move the puck quicker.

It would be an advantage to good skating teams.(Can't hit what you can't catch)

It would create an even more interesting aspect to girls hockey.

The equipment is very protective, so why not?

Possible consequences of checking in girls hockey at youth and high school:

The strong D1 or D3 caliber player will love the idea, it will make them even better and widen the skill gap.
It would neutralize many smaller, faster and skilled players, as it has in the boys game.
It would define the sport as much by size as by skill, as it has become in the boys game.
It would scare many players out of the sport when in many places it is desperate for participants.
It would likely eliminate participation for younger underclassmen where they are needed on many teams.

It would also widen the skill gap at the U12 level.
It would scare out many parents of young girls players who already see the sport as an injury risk, crippling the development and numbers.
Many great players who have developed in youth girls hockey might not ever see the ice to begin with.
It would then cause many more girls with decent combinations of skills and size to play on boys teams for the hitting and development.
It would likely lead to the end of girls youth hockey as a viable sport.

There's a decent amount of contact in girls HS hockey that allows a player to be "taken out of the play" as it is, unlike boys hockey which at times seems more like they'd rather take an opponent off the ice in a stretcher instead of out of the play. Finishing checks long after the play is gone that takes both players out of the subsequent play. None of this existed in the sport as it was originally designed.

Granted it's not the same sport as "true" hockey as we know it today, but it is a rather pure exhibition of the sport as it was originally conceived. I think it's fine as is.

[MNHockeyFan]

Possible consequences of checking in girls hockey at youth and high school:

The strong D1 or D3 caliber player will love the idea, it will make them even better and widen the skill gap.
It would neutralize many smaller, faster and skilled players, as it has in the boys game.
It would define the sport as much by size as by skill, as it has become in the boys game.
It would scare many players out of the sport when in many places it is desperate for participants.
It would likely eliminate participation for younger underclassmen where they are needed on many teams.

It would also widen the skill gap at the U12 level.
It would scare out many parents of young girls players who already see the sport as an injury risk, crippling the development and numbers.
Many great players who have developed in youth girls hockey might not ever see the ice to begin with.
It would then cause many more girls with decent combinations of skills and size to play on boys teams for the hitting and development.
It would likely lead to the end of girls youth hockey as a viable sport.

There's a decent amount of contact in girls HS hockey that allows a player to be "taken out of the play" as it is, unlike boys hockey which at times seems more like they'd rather take an opponent off the ice in a stretcher instead of out of the play. Finishing checks long after the play is gone that takes both players out of the subsequent play. None of this existed in the sport as it was originally designed.

Granted it's not the same sport as "true" hockey as we know it today, but it is a rather pure exhibition of the sport as it was originally conceived. I think it's fine as is.

I agree 100%. You obviously thought this through very carefully, and make a compelling case for keeping the rules as they are. Many parents already think hockey is too dangerous to allow their girls take up the game. If full checking were to be allowed, their perception would become reality, and you'd see the numbers start to decline.

[hipcheck]

The bottom line, is, the girls do not want to play check hockey!

They then should quit whining about an occasional hit when a player is not prepared. Collisions will happen when the speed of the game rises. If the refs call it correctly, there will be a penalty, but it will not prevent the injury!

If there is checking, it may not become a more physical game, but rather, the girls will be prepared for the check and thus, elimate the odd injury.

There have been many boys games where hardly a check has been given. This is due to the fact that the teams prefer a high speed skating game.

In the Boys AA Championship game last year, it was a finesse game and not a very physical game, although checking is permitted.

[GoTigers]

I recently heard of another injury as the result of a "check" in a girls game. Does anyone know the condition of the jv player injured in the Lakeville vs. Farmington game on 1/31? From what I've been told, the injured player was more "sandwiched" into the boards, and not thrust head-first. She skated off under her own power, but collapsed on the bench. She apparently lost feeling below the neck.

In the Farmington vs. Lakeville jv game, the girl who got hurt got checked hard in the open ice within a few seconds of the end of the game. She got sandwiched by two larger girls they they all fell to the ice together.

Her spinal cord was injured and she was paralysed for a few days. She is still out of school and using a wheel chair to get around almost two weeks after this hapenned. We are all hoping for a full recovery.

I was at this game and my daughter was sandwiched against the boards by a girl at least 80 lbs heavier. This was a hit from behind and my daugheter was also injured with a bad knee injury. Thankfully, she was only off skates for two days.

Both of the girls who were injured are 8th graders and were much much smaller than the average Lakeville players. The refs had no control of this game whatsoever and I blame them for not setting the proper tone for this game from the first period.

Go Tigers.

[winnings not 4 everyone]

Good reason to keep 7th and 8th graders in 14U.

[brookyone]

Better reason to keep checking out of girls' hockey...one reason being so the talented enough to play varsity youngsters can play varsity and contribute to the sport overall. Girls' hockey isn't broke...doesn't need fixing.

[MNHockeyFan]

Better reason to keep checking out of girls' hockey...one reason being so the talented enough to play varsity youngsters can play varsity and contribute to the sport overall. Girls' hockey isn't broke...doesn't need fixing.

This may be heresy to some, but female bodies are just not built the same as males. Women athletes can certainly train and become even stronger and in much better shape than many male athletes, but as both sexes mature (starting at around age 13) the differences generally become more pronounced. The average male begins to develop more muscle and strength than the average female. I do not have any supporting evidence, but from observation over the years I believe that male bodies can absorb harder hits than female bodies without suffering serious injuries. I've been to many high school boys games and college games where the hitting is just fierce, to the point where other than for intimidation reasons it becomes totally unneccessary. I shudder to think what the girls game would become if larger/heavier/stronger players were free to run smaller-framed girls into the boards as hard as the boys do. Invariably, once checking was allowed, you'd see the elbows start flying, sticks up, and lots more charging and boarding penalties where it wasn't quite a legal check. The ones getting hurt would mostly be the smaller girls, even highly skilled ones that get caught in a corner and somtimes just can't avoid the big bruiser coming at her. I think that over time many of these players would decide that it just isn't worth it and would quit hockey. And as already mentioned it would discourage many more parents from allowing their girls to take up the game in the first place.

So I agree with brookyone - if the game ain't broke, don't fix it.

[RockHard]

Girls' ice hockey injuries during tournament play

How do they compare in number, type, and seriousness with boys' injuries?

Janny Dwyer Brust, MPH
William O. Roberts, MD
Barbara J. Leonard, PhD, RN

Today, Minnesota girls are playing ice hockey in record numbers. During the 1993/94 ice hockey tournaments, the authors assessed and compared the number, type, and seriousness of injuries sustained by female and male players of similar age in 13 and 26 games, respectively. The most remarkable finding was that the injury rate for girls was half that for boys. None of the 4 injuries sustained by girls was serious; in contrast, 7 (35%) of the 20 injuries sustained by boys required a physician's care. In addition, the average number of penalties assessed per game was 0.9 for girls versus 8.6 for boys. Twenty-five percent of penalties assessed against female players were considered aggressive as opposed to 59% of those levied against male players. In addition, girls held less aggressive attitudes toward the game than did boys. A significant difference between girls' and boys' hockey is that girls play the game as a limited-contact rather than a collision sport. Since collision is reportedly associated with the number and seriousness of injuries, the authors suggest that the rule against intentional collision in girls' hockey most likely is the reason that girls experience fewer and less serious injuries and play the game with less hostility than their male counterparts.

I know this is hard for some people on here to understand. Checking slows the game down and really just rewards those who hit hardest. Play football if you want to "GET HURT". The last thing I want is my daughter injured by some goon or goons daughter, with no real skills, for the entertainment of some people who live vicariously through this sport.

[hockeya1a]

Girls' ice hockey injuries during tournament play

How do they compare in number, type, and seriousness with boys' injuries?

Janny Dwyer Brust, MPH
William O. Roberts, MD
Barbara J. Leonard, PhD, RN

Today, Minnesota girls are playing ice hockey in record numbers. During the 1993/94 ice hockey tournaments, the authors assessed and compared the number, type, and seriousness of injuries sustained by female and male players of similar age in 13 and 26 games, respectively. The most remarkable finding was that the injury rate for girls was half that for boys. None of the 4 injuries sustained by girls was serious; in contrast, 7 (35%) of the 20 injuries sustained by boys required a physician's care. In addition, the average number of penalties assessed per game was 0.9 for girls versus 8.6 for boys. Twenty-five percent of penalties assessed against female players were considered aggressive as opposed to 59% of those levied against male players. In addition, girls held less aggressive attitudes toward the game than did boys. A significant difference between girls' and boys' hockey is that girls play the game as a limited-contact rather than a collision sport. Since collision is reportedly associated with the number and seriousness of injuries, the authors suggest that the rule against intentional collision in girls' hockey most likely is the reason that girls experience fewer and less serious injuries and play the game with less hostility than their male counterparts.

I know this is hard for some people on here to understand. Checking slows the game down and really just rewards those who hit hardest. Play football if you want to "GET HURT". The last thing I want is my daughter injured by some goon or goons daughter, with no real skills, for the entertainment of some people who live vicariously through this sport.

I could not agree more! When I watch the HS Boys play those that are the big checkers usually have become so focused on removing the other guy, they also remove themselves from the play. Sometimes they are so tuned into hitting they do not even try to get the puck only the man, and the next thing you know the puck is on its way to the other end.

[justavoicetohear]

as a player in girls hockey i think that it is stupid that we are not allowed to check. i think that we should have the same chances as all the boys teams do, including checking.

[OntheEdge]

as a player in girls hockey i think that it is stupid that we are not allowed to check. i think that we should have the same chances as all the boys teams do, including checking.

I think that justavoice is expressing the opinion of a great majority of the top female players. I have been on the fence on this issue but KeepitReal and the others make very good points of why it would be a bad idea to allow checking and I agree. Additionally, I believe that there is a lot more contact in girls hockey than most people realize especially in 2A (I have friends that complain to me that 1A games are called too closely and there are more penalties for contact). I think it ain't broke but ice officials have to be more consistent in what they call. It seems that when two talented and physical teams square off they permit more contact. When one team isn't as physical they tend to make more checking calls. The rules as I read them is that contact is permitted as long as there isn't a hit with the intent to separate the girl from the puck (i.e. hitting without playing the puck). There is a lot more contact allowed than a few years ago. I think the "no check rule" and what is considered a check by ice officals will continue to evolve to allow more and more contact without it getting it to the point where hitting is more important than skating shooting and passing. I say let the evolution continue without changing the rules.

[finance_gal]

Once the high school officials become more consistant and all of them realize that positioning and body contact arn't necessarily check's then Women's hockey will evolve into something closer to the international game. As it is right now coaches and players don't know what to expect from one game to next and it doesn't help teach girls the game of hockey.

[MNHockeyFan]

I think the "no check rule" and what is considered a check by ice officals will continue to evolve to allow more and more contact without it getting it to the point where hitting is more important than skating shooting and passing. I say let the evolution continue without changing the rules.

This is very true. As the skating and other skills improve and the intensity of the games increase, players will use their bodies more to gain an advantage and as a result there is naturally more contact. You certainly see this in D1 hockey where the play can get pretty rough at times even though there is still "no checking".

Like you OntheEdge I've been on the fence somewhat but I agree that it's probably best to let the "evolution" continue. If there is a rule change someday I hope they first change it in womens' college hockey especially D1 where all the players are all skilled and stronger physically, and are therefore better able to handle the hard, intentional checks. I would want to see how it works at the college level first before filtering any rule change down to high school. It wouldn't be good to change the rule in high school first, then they would have to learn how NOT to check when they move onto college. Or maybe you start at the international level (World Tournaments and Olympics) before considering changing the rule at the college level, etc.

P.S. Just watching some of the brutal hits in the boys tournament, I don't think MOST girls would have been able to skate back into the play after being on the receiving end of many of them. Did anyone else see when Roseau's star player Aaron Ness just got pummeled by the Blaine kid last night? It was a good legal check, but I was amazed that Ness was even able to get back up. I just can't see most parents wanting to see their daughters take that kind of punishment.

[State Champ 97]

Girls wouldn't be able to deliver many hits like that kid did to Ness last night.
There is checking in girls hockey though. There's forechecking, backchecking, stickchecking, poke checking, and all of those checks mom and dad wrote to the youth assc., high school, hockey camp, sporting goods store and fund raisers.

[OntheEdge]

Girls wouldn't be able to deliver many hits like that kid did to Ness last night.
There is checking in girls hockey though. There's forechecking, backchecking, stickchecking, poke checking, and all of those checks mom and dad wrote to the youth assc., high school, hockey camp, sporting goods store and fund raisers.

I too was amazed that Ness got up from the monster check and I agree with everything MNHockeyFan says. I'm wondering how many parents can recover from the money check.

[keepitreal]

Girls wouldn't be able to deliver many hits like that kid did to Ness last night.
There is checking in girls hockey though. There's forechecking, backchecking, stickchecking, poke checking, and all of those checks mom and dad wrote to the youth assc., high school, hockey camp, sporting goods store and fund raisers.