It should not need a little time, it's common sense something I have not seen any of the games I have watched.
What I have see is fat old out of shape whistle happy refs wasting time and money and ruining a good Pee Wee A hockey game [/quote]
The Refs have been very consistent IMO. Might as well take out the Pee Wee designation because it is squirt hockey. 4-5 years of mites, 4 years of squirts, than if were lucky we get 2 years of watching the game we grew up playing. On every checking call that I've received an explanation on so far it has been.....well he followed through on the check?? How do you initiate any contact without following through?
Take away space using your position, strength, and skill. Don't extend hands, arms, or make an outward motion to "check" the player off of the puck. It seems simple enough, but every coach and ref will interpret it in their own way.
33huskies wrote:Take away space using your position, strength, and skill. Don't extend hands, arms, or make an outward motion to "check" the player off of the puck. It seems simple enough, but every coach and ref will interpret it in their own way.
Lets not forget to add shoulder, hip, or legs. At least that is how is has been interpreted to me thus far. Sorry people but contact cannot be initiated without follow through. Didn't the USA hockey video I watched allow rubouts? Last time I checked (pun intended) that cannot be accomplished without touching another player. I guess it has come down to how loud the sound is on the boards, regardless of contact. Sorry state of affairs.
Totally agree with what a lot of you are saying. coached in two peewee games. The first game the refs wouldn't let you breathe in the wrong direction without calling something. Last time i checked (no pun intended) but you are still allow to pin (just don't make a loud noise against the boards) and take away the ice of an opposing player. A lot of hacking with the sticks that went uncalled in my opinion. Second game was perfect. referees let the kids play, didn't call any tic-tac penalties and overall did a wonderful job. They were very impartial and there was much better flow to the game and more enjoyable to coach and watch.
And here is my two cents... inconsistency. One game the referees will allow the kids to play and the next day you will be playing a lot of 5-3 hockey. Hell, the first game the opposing team had literally (5) 5-3 powerplays... Either I have some very cheap kids on the team or i am a terrible coach. I don't know about any of you here, but that doesn't sound like USA skill development to me. and extremely frustrating for the fans, players and coaches on both teams.
I know its the beginning of the season... but come on watch the 3 minute video. and realize that just because a kid falls on the ice doesn't indicate that someone illegally ran him over.
The main thing to remember is Officiating is all about one Persons "Judgement". This Judgement, when compared to anothers can differ. (just look at ALL the differnt opinions / judgements on this web site) The game looks very different from the Stands, to the bench to the ice. The game will be different based on the set of officials you get. Personally I can say I know some ref's who have watched the USA Officiating Video over and over again. Most officials take there job very seriously, they hear what the Supervisor of officials are preachnig, they hear what the districts are preaching, They read the rule book, they take tests, etc... Remember the whole purpose of these rules tighting up is to clean up the game and hopefully eliminate some of the injuries and "act of intimidation" that has happened in the past. Everyone is doing there best. Most the people I hear complaining around the rink are the ones who have only seen the game from the stands. Or its the coach that use to make up for the lack of their teams skills (speed) by playing the body. We'll all adapt. Lets just make sure everyoe is having Fun at the rink.
Scout716 wrote:The main thing to remember is Officiating is all about one Persons "Judgement". This Judgement, when compared to anothers can differ. (just look at ALL the differnt opinions / judgements on this web site) The game looks very different from the Stands, to the bench to the ice. The game will be different based on the set of officials you get. Personally I can say I know some ref's who have watched the USA Officiating Video over and over again. Most officials take there job very seriously, they hear what the Supervisor of officials are preachnig, they hear what the districts are preaching, They read the rule book, they take tests, etc... Remember the whole purpose of these rules tighting up is to clean up the game and hopefully eliminate some of the injuries and "act of intimidation" that has happened in the past. Everyone is doing there best. Most the people I hear complaining around the rink are the ones who have only seen the game from the stands. Or its the coach that use to make up for the lack of their teams skills (speed) by playing the body. We'll all adapt. Lets just make sure everyoe is having Fun at the rink.
Exactly my point, the new rule puts incredible pressure on refs to make very subjective calls just about everytime there is the slightest contact. After 7 games all I have seen is Squirt hockey at the peewee level, this is not the intent of the new rule, but I don't see it changing anytine soon without a revision of the new rule. And the new rule has done nothing to stop the dangerous stuff that still happens, checking from behind etc, have seen the same amount of these as last year. My fear is now a kid goes into corner and does not brace for a possible hit, when it happens his guard is down and the chance of injury has increased.
Why are the refs having trouble...they all have been reffing girls hockey and it is now the same thing, it should lead to more consistent calls if nothing else
"looks like squirt hockey", remember that the second half of this rule is to increase body contact at the squirt level...so what are the squirt games going to look like.
Or its the coach that use to make up for the lack of their teams skills (speed) by playing the body.
I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but PLAYING THE BODY is part of the &%$#$^* game of hockey. The fact that USA Hockey has now removed it at the peewee level is a joke and this is coming from a former player and current coach/parent. And if you don't think they have removed it, you are being naive. I have watched the training videos, I have spoken to refs and I have talked to other coaches and I would say almost 100 percent do not like this rule (just my sample pool). The peewee stuff I have seen has been awful. Kids treat it like a toe-pull competition now in the offensive zone because they know they can't get hit, so passing is going to suffer. Watched plenty of high-level summer hockey of this age group this year with checking and kids knew that if they held the puck too long, they would get planted. It encouraged them to move the puck. Terrible.
Deep Breath wrote:...Watched plenty of high-level summer hockey of this age group this year with checking and kids knew that if they held the puck too long, they would get planted. It encouraged them to move the puck. Terrible.
All the way down to '00's Next summer the '01's. Just another way that AAA hockey can / will separate itself from the association model.
edgeless2 wrote:It should not need a little time, it's common sense something I have not seen any of the games I have watched.
What I have see is fat old out of shape whistle happy refs wasting time and money and ruining a good Pee Wee A hockey game
I see a lot of HEP points (Fair Play Points) being lost.
The Refs have been very consistent IMO. Might as well take out the Pee Wee designation because it is squirt hockey. 4-5 years of mites, 4 years of squirts, than if were lucky we get 2 years of watching the game we grew up playing. On every checking call that I've received an explanation on so far it has been.....well he followed through on the check?? How do you initiate any contact without following through?[/quote]
Scout716 wrote:The main thing to remember is Officiating is all about one Persons "Judgement". This Judgement, when compared to anothers can differ. (just look at ALL the differnt opinions / judgements on this web site) The game looks very different from the Stands, to the bench to the ice. The game will be different based on the set of officials you get. Personally I can say I know some ref's who have watched the USA Officiating Video over and over again. Most officials take there job very seriously, they hear what the Supervisor of officials are preachnig, they hear what the districts are preaching, They read the rule book, they take tests, etc... Remember the whole purpose of these rules tighting up is to clean up the game and hopefully eliminate some of the injuries and "act of intimidation" that has happened in the past. Everyone is doing there best. Most the people I hear complaining around the rink are the ones who have only seen the game from the stands. Or its the coach that use to make up for the lack of their teams skills (speed) by playing the body. We'll all adapt. Lets just make sure everyoe is having Fun at the rink.
Thats the point, the game SHOULDN'T be different depending on the officials. The goal should be a uniform understanding and application of the rules across games regardless of who the officials are. The no checking rule makes this very difficult and will hinder development.
Do you expect part of the development is to scout refs and make a practice plan for the next game based on how that ref will interpret the rule ?
Hey, a new busniess opportunity to sell via USA hockey. A ref DB indicating how each ref interprets the rules that coaches can buy a subscription from
From the Canadian Medical Association (the people that did the study on peewees that USAH so relied on) on thier most recent study of bantam hockey (injuries - concussions resulting in teams without body checking in peewees versus those with checking upon entering bantams).
"Interpretation: The risk of injury resulting in more than seven days of time loss from play was reduced by 33% among Bantam hockey players in a league where bodychecking was allowed two years earlier in Pee Wee compared with Bantam players introduced to bodychecking for the first time at age 13. In light of the increased risk of concussion and other injury among Pee Wee players in a league where bodychecking is permitted, policy regarding the age at which hockey players are introduced to bodychecking re quires further consideration. "
[quote="elliott70"]From the Canadian Medical Association (the people that did the study on peewees that USAH so relied on) on thier most recent study of bantam hockey (injuries - concussions resulting in teams without body checking in peewees versus those with checking upon entering bantams).
"Interpretation: The risk of injury resulting in more than seven days of time loss from play was reduced by 33% among Bantam hockey players in a league where bodychecking was allowed two years earlier in Pee Wee compared with Bantam players introduced to bodychecking for the first time at age 13. In light of the increased risk of concussion and other injury among Pee Wee players in a league where bodychecking is permitted, [b]policy regarding the age at which hockey players are introduced to bodychecking [u]re quires further consideration[/u].[/b] "[/quote]
These results shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The gap in size between a 1st yr peewee and 2nd yr peewee is more often than not a lot smaller than between a 1st yr bantam and a 2nd yr bantam. So, if you now have kids going onto the Bantam ice who have never been instructed on how to deliver a hit or take a hit, getting hit by some bantams who will easily eclipse 6 feet, 200 lbs, it shouldn't be a suprise that injuries are going to happen. Now injuries are going to happen anyway, but I would much rather have a player going onto the Bantam ice for the first time have AT LEAST two seasons of checking under his breezers rather than not. Taking the checking away "but encouraging more contact" (give me a break) was a mistake when they tried it in the early 80s and it is a mistake now. Not only should they be checking at the peewee level, they should be starting the squirts on the proper techniques to deliver and recieve a check.
33huskies wrote: Sorry people but contact cannot be initiated without follow through..
"Follow through your check" is so vague and widely misunderstood that it shouldn't even be used in polite company anymore. Nine times out of ten, people mean "continue your momentum in roughly the same direction and same speed and smash the guy you're on an intercept course with, whether he has the puck or not." That's the kind of "follow through" I saw in this summer's celebrated showdown between the 00 Blades and Machine. Three kids were carried off the ice, one left the game.
33huskies wrote: Sorry people but contact cannot be initiated without follow through..
"Follow through your check" is so vague and widely misunderstood that it shouldn't even be used in polite company anymore. Nine times out of ten, people mean "continue your momentum in roughly the same direction and same speed and smash the guy you're on an intercept course with, whether he has the puck or not." That's the kind of "follow through" I saw in this summer's celebrated showdown between the 00 Blades and Machine. Three kids were carried off the ice, one left the game.
oh come on now ...
The skater that unfortunately was forced to leave the game, was taken out by a text book Scott Steven's style hip check ... of which was legal in this tourney.
33huskies wrote: Sorry people but contact cannot be initiated without follow through..
"Follow through your check" is so vague and widely misunderstood that it shouldn't even be used in polite company anymore. Nine times out of ten, people mean "continue your momentum in roughly the same direction and same speed and smash the guy you're on an intercept course with, whether he has the puck or not." That's the kind of "follow through" I saw in this summer's celebrated showdown between the 00 Blades and Machine. Three kids were carried off the ice, one left the game.
Interestingly obtuse. Maybe the kids who initiate contact should fall down first.
edgeless2 wrote: Interestingly obtuse. Maybe the kids who initiate contact should fall down first.
You prove my point. Precisely what most people identify as "following through" a check. The kids may as well be taught how to be cannon balls, if that's what passes for good, legal checking.
edgeless2 wrote: Interestingly obtuse. Maybe the kids who initiate contact should fall down first.
You prove my point. Precisely what most people identify as "following through" a check. The kids may as well be taught how to be cannon balls, if that's what passes for good, legal checking.
You make zero sense. I must have missed the cannonball section of the USA hockey contact video.
a point that has been emphasied this year is "Play the Puck first" so if a player is aggressive with the body and his stick is 6" off the ice he is no longer making an attempt to play the puck (assuming the puck is on the ice.) as an official it can be difficulty to assess the intentions of a player. All we can do is use our Judgement and knowledge of how the Rule is written to keep everyone safe and enjoying the game. All of this is only partial on the officials. the Coaches have a big part of "Teaching" the players how to give, receive and position themselves for aggressive body contact. For some coaches this has been over looked in the past, USA Hockey has but educational peices togather that can also assist everyone in keeping this game the Best Game there is.
whether u agree or disagree with the rule changes... all i want to see is consistency between games.. it is extremely difficult to understand what will be allowed to be legal contact and what will be illegal contact. How are u suppose to teach skills pertaining to correct body position when there is so much inconsistency in the calls that are being made? And as i mentioned earlier... I have seen games where the referees have been very consistent and visa versa... when tic tacky calls are being made... Than the game begins to become very subjective between calls rather than objective. There is a huge difference between someone going in for the mere satisfaction of playing the body and a player that has correct body position, that is taking away the stick and ice of an opposing player...
Here are my concerns moving forward: no body contact will reinforce more players keeping their heads down, less passing and hockey sense (seeing the ice), too many power play and shorthanded situations, and those HEP points
Stripes2011 wrote:a point that has been emphasied this year is "Play the Puck first" so if a player is aggressive with the body and his stick is 6" off the ice he is no longer making an attempt to play the puck (assuming the puck is on the ice.) as an official it can be difficulty to assess the intentions of a player. All we can do is use our Judgement and knowledge of how the Rule is written to keep everyone safe and enjoying the game. All of this is only partial on the officials. the Coaches have a big part of "Teaching" the players how to give, receive and position themselves for aggressive body contact. For some coaches this has been over looked in the past, USA Hockey has but educational peices togather that can also assist everyone in keeping this game the Best Game there is.
This is exactly the point most coaches are trying to emphasize. Where in the new rule does it state if the stick is 6" off the ice than it is automatic. While I empathize with this interpretation and it does make all kinds of common sense, this is not how the rule is written, nor does it take any stripes into account. While this may be your districts interpretation, it does not lend itself to uniformity. Which lends itself to "interpretretation" it does not allow coaches to teach...this is ok...this is not ok... No offense but I have thought that the rule as it reads does not allow for interpretation. That being said you have your read on the rule, others have theirs. Do you think that is fair to people who volunteer and who are not getting paid, or is it just up to individual interpretation to guide the men and women who volunteer?
My intent was to give an example. in general purpose the rule, or interpetation, is to determine if the player is playing the Puck or the Body. I was just using an example that if the stick is off the ice the intent to play the puck was eliminated, this can assist an official in making the call. I agree, Body contact will and should still be part of the game. Beleive me, all us officials, just like coaches, parents, etc have differnt tollerance level for body contact. I'm just sticking up for "us" officials who have to make these calls. Its like a close call in baseball half the people think its a "bad call" the other half liked it.
Thanks for the posts, hopefully these posts can help everyone see all sides what is taking place on the ice.
Stripes2011 wrote:a point that has been emphasied this year is "Play the Puck first" so if a player is aggressive with the body and his stick is 6" off the ice he is no longer making an attempt to play the puck (assuming the puck is on the ice.) as an official it can be difficulty to assess the intentions of a player. All we can do is use our Judgement and knowledge of how the Rule is written to keep everyone safe and enjoying the game. All of this is only partial on the officials. the Coaches have a big part of "Teaching" the players how to give, receive and position themselves for aggressive body contact. For some coaches this has been over looked in the past, USA Hockey has but educational peices togather that can also assist everyone in keeping this game the Best Game there is.
This is exactly the point most coaches are trying to emphasize. Where in the new rule does it state if the stick is 6" off the ice than it is automatic. While I empathize with this interpretation and it does make all kinds of common sense, this is not how the rule is written, nor does it take any stripes into account. While this may be your districts interpretation, it does not lend itself to uniformity. Which lends itself to "interpretretation" it does not allow coaches to teach...this is ok...this is not ok... No offense but I have thought that the rule as it reads does not allow for interpretation. That being said you have your read on the rule, others have theirs. Do you think that is fair to people who volunteer and who are not getting paid, or is it just up to individual interpretation to guide the men and women who volunteer?
I don't see where that is any different than it ever has been, or is at any other level. Is it a trip? this person believes it is, the parents in the stand believe it isn't. Is it head contact? Different angle, different perspectives give different answers. Is it a check from behind? or not. The people wearing the stripes on the ice sometimes disagree with each other. Is it boarding? The parents will debate whether their feet left the ice.
A bantam kid can be coached correctly on executing a check and the kid could perform it perfectly and still get called on for a head contact if the other kid isn't tall enough.
Make the penalty harsher, kids should not be getting called for multiple checks from behind in a season. Give them less penalties in a game, three is more than enough. Kid gets less ice time, parents will start talking to junior really quickly.
Bantam game the other night, same kid got a 5 minute roughing and a 2 and 10 for a check from behind...but with no intent to injure or three penalty rule, was allowed back on the ice again for a nice slash.
[/quote]
