Hockey injuries

[warriors41]

Django, I see your point but I do think most hockey fans (and coaches) love to see "hard hits" as long as they are LEGAL. By LEGAL I mean they are NOT from behind and they do NOT involve contact to the head. Those are the hits that need to be minimized to reduce the number of serious injuries.

Until one of those legal hard hits cripples a kid. Why should it be legal if a less hard hit would accomplish the same thing?

Because you can't legislate "hard" (would "medium hard" be OK?). And how hard a check ends up being depends on many factors, including the rate of speed of the skater with the puck and whether he has his head down when he's racing towards the player who's about to check him.

I think hard hits (as long as they are otherwise LEGAL!) will always be part of the game, just like hard tackles will always be part of football.

Exactly! Mite-Dad referred to how his son was injured when he caught an edge in the ice. Maybe they should take the ice away and just play street style hockey. That would eliminate that type of injury. There is inherent risk with any sport, whether it's a contact sport or not. If a hit is legal, it shouldn't matter how hard it was.

I know that some people have said on here that they want to see a more finesse style of hockey anyway. What about those teams that are good and competitive but don't have much skill? Those teams that rely on their physical nature to take highly skilled teams out of their element? A lot of northern teams would be negatively affected by something like that. And more importantly, a lot of good players wouldn't be able to play because their skill alone isn't enough to get them on the ice.

[Cdale]

How about eliminating checking behind the goal line? Obviously 'body contact' would need to be allowed (otherwise a dangler would just dangle), but somehow eliminate the full speed race to the puck after a dump in which often results in a player trying to basically blow up a kid. Often a D races in 1st, turns one way or the other and is dominated into the boards. If he turns wrong way he goes in head 1st. And even when it is a clean hit, he is often nailed big time.

[D6Rocks]

Django, I see your point but I do think most hockey fans (and coaches) love to see "hard hits" as long as they are LEGAL. By LEGAL I mean they are NOT from behind and they do NOT involve contact to the head. Those are the hits that need to be minimized to reduce the number of serious injuries.

Until one of those legal hard hits cripples a kid. Why should it be legal if a less hard hit would accomplish the same thing?

Because you can't legislate "hard" (would "medium hard" be OK?). And how hard a check ends up being depends on many factors, including the rate of speed of the skater with the puck and whether he has his head down when he's racing towards the player who's about to check him.

I think hard hits (as long as they are otherwise LEGAL!) will always be part of the game, just like hard tackles will always be part of football.

Exactly! Mite-Dad referred to how his son was injured when he caught an edge in the ice. Maybe they should take the ice away and just play street style hockey. That would eliminate that type of injury. There is inherent risk with any sport, whether it's a contact sport or not. If a hit is legal, it shouldn't matter how hard it was.

I know that some people have said on here that they want to see a more finesse style of hockey anyway. What about those teams that are good and competitive but don't have much skill? Those teams that rely on their physical nature to take highly skilled teams out of their element? A lot of northern teams would be negatively affected by something like that. And more importantly, a lot of good players wouldn't be able to play because their skill alone isn't enough to get them on the ice.

OK, self inflicted injuries are not part of this discussion.
Legal Hard hits rarely cause significant injuries. (no a broken bone is not a significant injury)
Anything to the head is Illegal.
Anything to the back is Illegal.

These are the things that need to be called more often and correctly.

So we should allow rule breaking if they can't skate very well?
How can someone be a good hockey player if they don't have much skill?
So all they can do is hit. If they can do it legally, let them play. If they can't, then they cheer from the stands.

[Defensive Zone]

This tragedy has not just rocked the hockey community, but my guess the United States. I just received a phone call from my 83 year old mother who lives in Arizona. She heard about this accident on the news. My mother asked me a number of questions about checking rules and regulations. I could tell she was worried about her grandson’s who play. Also, during the conversation her tone was very sympathetic towards the high school player and his parents involved. If my mother is asking me these questions, then this story is out there across the country. If anything good can come of this, let it start now. Talk to your kids about checking. Have a parent/coaches meeting to discuss prevention. Team coaches should talk to your players. Referees can have a short discussion with the coaching staff before the next game. Let’s start the process now. It is up to us!

[warriors41]

Because you can't legislate "hard" (would "medium hard" be OK?). And how hard a check ends up being depends on many factors, including the rate of speed of the skater with the puck and whether he has his head down when he's racing towards the player who's about to check him.

I think hard hits (as long as they are otherwise LEGAL!) will always be part of the game, just like hard tackles will always be part of football.

Exactly! Mite-Dad referred to how his son was injured when he caught an edge in the ice. Maybe they should take the ice away and just play street style hockey. That would eliminate that type of injury. There is inherent risk with any sport, whether it's a contact sport or not. If a hit is legal, it shouldn't matter how hard it was.

I know that some people have said on here that they want to see a more finesse style of hockey anyway. What about those teams that are good and competitive but don't have much skill? Those teams that rely on their physical nature to take highly skilled teams out of their element? A lot of northern teams would be negatively affected by something like that. And more importantly, a lot of good players wouldn't be able to play because their skill alone isn't enough to get them on the ice.

OK, self inflicted injuries are not part of this discussion.
Legal Hard hits rarely cause significant injuries. (no a broken bone is not a significant injury)
Anything to the head is Illegal.
Anything to the back is Illegal.

These are the things that need to be called more often and correctly.

So we should allow rule breaking if they can't skate very well?
How can someone be a good hockey player if they don't have much skill?
So all they can do is hit. If they can do it legally, let them play. If they can't, then they cheer from the stands.

That's not what I'm saying at all. There are people who have said they would like to see the game transition to a more skill style of play and see the hitting downplayed. All I'm saying is that not all teams and not all players will be able to play that way. Those players or teams that are physical aren't breaking the rules when they hit now, so why should they be punished? You can't reasonably say, "That was a legal hit by definition, but it was too hard. You're going to the box."

[Django]

MNhockeyFan – I know coaches and fans love to see them (hard hits). But I think they are intrinsically dangerous, and not integral to the game (scoring goals). I don’t think kid’s health should be endangered because ‘coaches and fans love them’. They are not roman gladiators (kill each other for our entertainment), they are kids.
Also, you CAN regulate ‘hard’ hits. The NFL is working on that, tweaking the rules every year. After the Boogaard story the NHL will also. For example, how about ‘checking with intent to injure’. In the NFL they have ‘excessive celebration’. Sometimes rules need to be ambiguous and left to the referee to judge.
I would like to see culture of checking moving back towards ‘an attempt to separate the player from the puck’ only, anything else is penalized. Kids doing the checking need to be thinking “I don’t want to hurt anybody”, not “I’m going to hammer this kid”.
Any coach who teaches ‘finish your check’ is teaching ‘gratuitous hits’. What percentage of coaches do you think have said that.

[D6Rocks]

I agree with you. But lets be honest. In the NHL almost every high sticking call is made, but we still have high sticking occurring. Tripping is another penalty that gets called a high percentage of the time. Has it eliminated the penalty from the game or even reduced it? I'm not so sure. My point is the nature and speed of the game makes it impossible to remove horrific injuries from the game.

If you think that there aren't less plays involving "stick work" now as compared to 20 years ago, you aren't watching much NHL hockey. There may be the same amount of penalties called. But now they are calling the ones that they used to get away with. So the more flagrant violations don't occur as often. The players are adapting. Which is what would happen with the Head and Back hits that are occurring now. If they start calling all of them, the big ones will lessen. And that is what we want. Less injuries, not less penalties.

[SportsNorthFan]

There is girl hockey and then there is boy hockey. Nothing is going to change there. This is an unfortunate freak accident that happened. Just like an unfortunate freak car accident. Illegal checks have gone on for years and years. It's not right but it's a part of hockey. The players need to be continually taught illegal checks and legal checks and the refs need to be taught to make sure they don't let any illegal hits slide and to be firm on that. These kids that illegally checked Jablonski will have to live with this. We need something positive to come out of this tragedy. If you play hockey, you could be seriously hurt and accidentally paralyzed. Is the risk worth it to you?

[Tigers95]

The recent rule changes that have been made in the name of speeding up the game can be partially blamed for some of the injuries that have occurred. There was a time when you could slow a fore checker down by impeding his progress into the zone without penalty unless you totally interfered with him through physical contact. This slowed the game down from the blue line in, thus less reckless abandon forechecking. How about changing the rules and allow the defensive player to impede progress of a forechecker from the blue line in?

[hipcheck]

Nothing wrong with a good, legal check in hockey. Rules have been changed and some need to revert back to the "good old days"!

Specifically, checking from the blue line out. 3/4 ice checking. Forwards cannot come in and blast the defending team(ala dump and chase). This allows the defending team time to get the puck, take a look and make an outlet pass. Now, once you clear the blueline, KEEP YOUR HEAD UP!

One more thing, get rid of the facemask, go to half shield!

[HShockeywatcher]

There is girl hockey and then there is boy hockey. Nothing is going to change there. This is an unfortunate freak accident that happened. Just like an unfortunate freak car accident. Illegal checks have gone on for years and years. It's not right but it's a part of hockey. The players need to be continually taught illegal checks and legal checks and the refs need to be taught to make sure they don't let any illegal hits slide and to be firm on that. These kids that illegally checked Jablonski will have to live with this. We need something positive to come out of this tragedy. If you play hockey, you could be seriously hurt and accidentally paralyzed. Is the risk worth it to you?

The issue is that some think this discussion is about "this incident." There was recently a very unfortunate incident that happened, but the discussion is about the state how hockey and how it is not being called by the rules. Period.

I have a son who plays high school hockey, and I’m very good friends with a few high school and youth coaches. This is the way I see it. Whats the purpose of checking? I think the ‘real’ purpose of checking to knock a player off the puck. If that’s correct, then there is never any reason to ‘finish the check’. By this I mean … the player has released his shot, the skater is moving towards him but could easily pull up or go around him, but ‘every’ coach expects him to ‘finish his check’ and hit the guy. Why? To intimidate I think. I’d like to see this stopped. It really is gratuitous violence.

I have pointed this out numerous times. 95% of the time the only reason you hit a player the way it happens against the board is because he is a better hockey player than you. Period. You may be bigger and able to hit harder, but if you were a better player, you'd skate away.

Checking the player in the open ice to get the puck is a smart move.

Do I think there is room for improvement? Sure, everyone can improve. Do I think that we should review how closely they call potentially dangerous hits? Of course...we all want the players to stay safe. I'm just saying that the game is a dangerous game by it's very nature...10 guys going as fast as they can in an small area with walls around it. Nascar has done what they can to make their equipment and sport safer but you still don't eliminate the accidents...some of them fatal. Football has done the same but there are still violent hits that can cause serious injury. We need to do better at identifying ways to make our sport safer but no matter what we do we can't eliminate accidents happening and saying that refs aren't making the right calls is just to simplistic.

And when has NASCAR given any real punishment to the players involved? If they banned players for causing crashes intentionally or whatever else they do (I don't know enough about the specifics of the activity), then people would stop.

You're right, football has done the same. They give monetary fines. Harrison is fined a little bit of money and doesn't stop because he has money. Those don't matter. We are talking about calling penalties that matter and getting these players off the ice (or field) which isn't done in football.

That's not what I'm saying at all. There are people who have said they would like to see the game transition to a more skill style of play and see the hitting downplayed. All I'm saying is that not all teams and not all players will be able to play that way. Those players or teams that are physical aren't breaking the rules when they hit now, so why should they be punished? You can't reasonably say, "That was a legal hit by definition, but it was too hard. You're going to the box."

Hard, LEGAL hits, fine.
Soft, ILLEGAL hits, bad.
Period. That's all 95+% of people on here are saying. Some are suggesting changing it, most are not.

[Cdale]

The issue is that some think this discussion is about "this incident." There was recently a very unfortunate incident that happened, but the discussion is about the state how hockey and how it is not being called by the rules. Period.

This discussion is happening because of the "incident". Any ideas/suggestions/thoughts as to how to prevent this from ever happening to anyone ever again are welcomed (I would think).

[Bandy]

There is girl hockey and then there is boy hockey. Nothing is going to change there. This is an unfortunate freak accident that happened. Just like an unfortunate freak car accident. Illegal checks have gone on for years and years. It's not right but it's a part of hockey. The players need to be continually taught illegal checks and legal checks and the refs need to be taught to make sure they don't let any illegal hits slide and to be firm on that. These kids that illegally checked Jablonski will have to live with this. We need something positive to come out of this tragedy. If you play hockey, you could be seriously hurt and accidentally paralyzed. Is the risk worth it to you?

I disagree with this attitude 100%. If the roof caved in and paralyzed a player, I'd say that's a freak accident. But when you have players hammering each other, there will be injuries. "Minor" injuries like broken arms & collar bones occur often. So do serious injuries like concussions. Thankfully paralzying injuries almost never occur, but they have before and will in the future. Playing by the rules, and enforcing the rules that are on the books will make all of these injuries less frequent. You'll never eliminate them, just like you'll never eliminate risks from biking, hiking, skiing, or driving your car. But you can reduce the injury rate--maybe by a lot--if you take excessive hits and illegal hits out of the game.

USA Hockey, and Hal Tearse (MN Hockey) have been really trying to get this through to the hockey community -- mainly (I think) because of concussions.

A freak car accident? If a drunk rams into a car carrying a family of 4, and kills them all, nobody calls it a freak accident. The drunk driver might be charged with murder. He knew the rules and the risks, and he did it anyway. Maybe he got away with it a thousand times before...

Before someone takes this the wrong way -- in no way am I suggesting that the guy who hit Jablonski is a murderer. From all reports, it wasn't an unusually bad hit.

But I am saying that the current hockey culture needs to change if we want to reduce the injury rate. I think we can and should. I don't think it will ruin the game--might even make it better if skills are emphasized over hitting. I think we owe it to every kid who plays the game. Especially kids who have had a concussion... or multiple concussions. And especially kids who suffered something more severe.

[Django]

Bandy - great comment. I agree completely.
I watched a game played since the injury
There was a check from behind, not at all brutal, no one got hurt, but it wasn't accidental.
He was given a 2 and a 10. That's a long time to think about it in the box.
I'm undecided whether he should have been thrown out. I think I probably would like to see that.
It would send a strong message.

[hipcheck]

In 1980 team USA won the Gold Medal. Go back an look at the game. I don't think you can find more than 5 checks in the semifinal and final games. Yes there was contact, and players moved the puck before they were hit, therefore getting themselves ready to be checked.

We(the game of hockey) need to get back to the flow game that is the art of the game. I am all for good solid checks and even a physical game played by both teams. Somewhere, these kids are losing the aspect of the purpose to check a player.

Years ago(60's) Canadian refs would come down and ref Northern MN highschool games. One of the comments I heard from them is "Don't change what you are doing. this is fun hockey".

We changed to make our "kids" more acceptable to play in the NHL.

[WB6162]

The more I think on this, and as a father of 3 hockey kids, 2 of which went on to play college hockey. The more I think on it the more I am convinced the right course of action is to suspend all checking in high school hockey.

All the glory of hockey for the next 100 years does not make up for the injury to that wonderful young man Jablonski.

The kid laced up his skates to play the game he loved on a Friday night and lost the life he loved an hour later.

There is no justification, there is no reason for it. It has to stop.

[woodley]

WB,

Taking your thoughts a little farther. . . football is done, lacrosse is done, heck, baseball is done (pitchers get hit by batted balls), certainly no one should ever drive again (there are more spinal injuries from auto accidents. . . ) OK, now that I've gone a little nuts, let's talk about it.

What happened to this young man is tragic, no question. However, my point above is we take certain risks in everything we do. Absolutely reduce the risk; but remember, we still all make choices and live in a country that gives us the privilege to choose.

I will be very interested to hear what young Mr. Jablonksi will say about the game of hockey when he is further down his recovery road. That will be very telling!!

[Mite-dad]

WB,

Taking your thoughts a little farther. . . football is done, lacrosse is done, heck, baseball is done (pitchers get hit by batted balls), certainly no one should ever drive again (there are more spinal injuries from auto accidents. . . ) OK, now that I've gone a little nuts, let's talk about it.

What happened to this young man is tragic, no question. However, my point above is we take certain risks in everything we do. Absolutely reduce the risk; but remember, we still all make choices and live in a country that gives us the privilege to choose.

I will be very interested to hear what young Mr. Jablonksi will say about the game of hockey when he is further down his recovery road. That will be very telling!!

WB isn't suggesting we quit playing at all. He has a valid point with a lot of experience with the game. Basketball is a very exciting sport, more popular than hockey. It is a contact sport, but not a collision sport like hockey and football. I'm sure hockey would survive just fine without checking and would still be considered a very physical game. It might even gain popularity with more Americans.

[HShockeywatcher]

Basketball is a very exciting sport, more popular than hockey. It is a contact sport, but not a collision sport like hockey and football. I'm sure hockey would survive just fine without checking and would still be considered a very physical game. It might even gain popularity with more Americans.

If you are to judge popularity in this sense simply by numbers, the answer is trivial, but I don't think that is true to the extent your point is making.

That being said, one thing that hasn't been brought up yet is hockey-related non-hockey injures. ie. if a person quits hockey at 15 because "if they get another concussion they will get brain damage" and they get their next concussion at 35 doing anything (picking up a pickle jar, backyard football, driving, or field hockey) is that to say it is not "hockey related?"
There are numerous reports out now about how 'repeated head hits' in football and similarly related hits lead to injures later in life. Do many of these happen to people who NEVER received a "serious injury?"

Is there anyone that doesn't love the physical nature of the game? I seriously doubt it.
Is there anyone who wouldn't give it all up for the "normal" life of their injured family/friend? I doubt it.

Keep the rules the same, get all refs and coaches on board, call the game as is and enforce the rules, possibly increasing penalties for infractions, 95+% of current players would keep playing and there would probably be more future interest in the game.

The people we don't want in the game in the first place would get out, more people would join, and we'd have less injury. Overall, very positive. The only objection is "changing the game" although the game is where it's at now ONLY because it has been "changed" a lot over time.

Anyway, lots to consider. No "right" answer, although I have my opinion.

[RoseauFan]

Hitting should not be eliminated from the game. It should be enforced correctly. The refs that call the games how they think it should be played have to be over. I think we have all these "older" refs who are living in the past and talking about how rough and tough they were back when they played. Guess what old timers, you didn't work out like the kids now, you didn't train like the kids now, and believe it or not you probably weren't as big, fast, or strong as the kids now. Yes there are exceptions but I would guess that most players are bigger, faster, stronger than they were 30 years ago.

Look at how many deaths have been caused by drunk driving, yet alcohol is still legal. How many people on these boards get behind the wheel after a few drinks, or a lot of drinks? You aren't letting things that have happened in the past deter you from your own actions, why would these kids be any different? And we as adults are the ones that are supposed to know better.

Like most people have said, we are never going to completely eliminate it BUT the rules that are in place (if called correctly) should help eliminate the problem. Here would be my proposed rule changes:

1. All checks from behind are a minimum of a 5 minute major and a 10 minute misconduct. This would include checks from behind at open ice that aren't called or given other penalties instead.

2. If the check from behind occurs along the boards or the opposing player is thrown into the boards, it should be a 5 minute major, game misconduct, plus an additional game suspension. The head coach should also be ejected from the current game and given an additional game suspension.

3. If the offense occurs in the 3rd period of a game and a game misconduct is valid, that player and coach should be suspended for the next 2 games.

It has to be complete black and white, no gray area. Contact made from behind (other than pinning someone against the boards) should be called checking from behind.

A coach will have the right to send any game tape to the MNSHL of an official that does not enforce the rules correctly (giving a cross check instead of check from behind). I'm pretty sure all games are being taped and if the evidence is clear, that official should then be suspended. This way the player, coach and official will all be held accountable.

[BBgunner]

Roseaufan- As a coach and ref I like and hate your idea. I am all for the 5 and game for a check from behind all levels adopt the college rule. Cut and dry. The open ice knock down from behind 99% of the time is not accuring risk but should be a penalty its is when contact from behind launches a kid into the boards we have injury. I am calling it a knock down because most of the time in the games I have been a part of it seems more incidental or laziness of not taking 2 more strides to get infront of and take the ice legally from a player. But in most cases a simple 2 minute penalty would suffice for roughing or call it a check from behind without incurring a 5 and game, maybe keep the 2 and 10 rule to further the not contact from behind. Going back to the pinning against the boards this is coaching I have had too many kids say I was just pinning them when the player gets put head first into the boards. Once again I think this is where a player must be in control and taught to take the ice from the front first to initiate the tie or pin up on the boards too often you see player #3 or #4 come into to a pinned up puck and bulldoze through or over and often from behind. This needs to be changed and eliminated. But all in all I am in complete agreement that the college rule be adopted all the way down of 5 and a game for checks from behind. Coaches should be tossed in a fair play sense maybe not for one Check from behind but maybe anytime the fair play point number gets exceeded. Its not about one infraction of one player but your team as a whole. Multiple Checks from behind and ejections of the same player should put both player and coach under board review however. I believe positives will come out of these 2 terrible tragedies, it will take time but hopefully they will be well thought out changes.

[Defensive Zone]

Roseaufan- As a coach and ref I like and hate your idea. I am all for the 5 and game for a check from behind all levels adopt the college rule. Cut and dry. The open ice knock down from behind 99% of the time is not accuring risk but should be a penalty its is when contact from behind launches a kid into the boards we have injury. I am calling it a knock down because most of the time in the games I have been a part of it seems more incidental or laziness of not taking 2 more strides to get infront of and take the ice legally from a player. But in most cases a simple 2 minute penalty would suffice for roughing or call it a check from behind without incurring a 5 and game, maybe keep the 2 and 10 rule to further the not contact from behind. Going back to the pinning against the boards this is coaching I have had too many kids say I was just pinning them when the player gets put head first into the boards. Once again I think this is where a player must be in control and taught to take the ice from the front first to initiate the tie or pin up on the boards too often you see player #3 or #4 come into to a pinned up puck and bulldoze through or over and often from behind. This needs to be changed and eliminated. But all in all I am in complete agreement that the college rule be adopted all the way down of 5 and a game for checks from behind. Coaches should be tossed in a fair play sense maybe not for one Check from behind but maybe anytime the fair play point number gets exceeded. Its not about one infraction of one player but your team as a whole. Multiple Checks from behind and ejections of the same player should put both player and coach under board review however. I believe positives will come out of these 2 terrible tragedies, it will take time but hopefully they will be well thought out changes.

I have to agree. I stated this on another thread...MSHSL and Minn. Hockey have a chance to do something positive. Reading all the ideas on this forum, I just keep going back to the education piece. You also could add a lack of responsibility on the player, parent, and/or coach. Think of this...What if a player is penalized or suspended in a game because of an illegal check (a hit that could cause catastrophic injury, paralysis, or even death). That player cannot play in the next game until they and their parents plus the coach go in front of a board (either association based or high school) for a re-entry meeting which meets once a week. This required meeting includes, but not limited to, a safety piece, rules interpretation, positioning, physical play, question and answers, etc. After the re-entry portion, the player can return to the next game. There would be a window of additional suspensions of games to the player and/or coach if repeated offenses occur.

[Neuuman]

Hitting should not be eliminated from the game. It should be enforced correctly. The refs that call the games how they think it should be played have to be over. I think we have all these "older" refs who are living in the past and talking about how rough and tough they were back when they played. Guess what old timers, you didn't work out like the kids now, you didn't train like the kids now, and believe it or not you probably weren't as big, fast, or strong as the kids now. Yes there are exceptions but I would guess that most players are bigger, faster, stronger than they were 30 years ago.

Look at how many deaths have been caused by drunk driving, yet alcohol is still legal. How many people on these boards get behind the wheel after a few drinks, or a lot of drinks? You aren't letting things that have happened in the past deter you from your own actions, why would these kids be any different? And we as adults are the ones that are supposed to know better.

Like most people have said, we are never going to completely eliminate it BUT the rules that are in place (if called correctly) should help eliminate the problem. Here would be my proposed rule changes:

1. All checks from behind are a minimum of a 5 minute major and a 10 minute misconduct. This would include checks from behind at open ice that aren't called or given other penalties instead.

2. If the check from behind occurs along the boards or the opposing player is thrown into the boards, it should be a 5 minute major, game misconduct, plus an additional game suspension. The head coach should also be ejected from the current game and given an additional game suspension.

3. If the offense occurs in the 3rd period of a game and a game misconduct is valid, that player and coach should be suspended for the next 2 games.

It has to be complete black and white, no gray area. Contact made from behind (other than pinning someone against the boards) should be called checking from behind.

A coach will have the right to send any game tape to the MNSHL of an official that does not enforce the rules correctly (giving a cross check instead of check from behind). I'm pretty sure all games are being taped and if the evidence is clear, that official should then be suspended. This way the player, coach and official will all be held accountable.

1. All checks from behind are a minimum of a 5 minute major and a 10 minute misconduct. This would include checks from behind at open ice that aren't called or given other penalties instead.

I agree that everything possible should be done to protect youth players. However, hypothetically speaking, if there's a scrum around the net and someone is "hacking" at my goalie, do you propose I skate a large circle to put myself into position to "not" hit him from behind to stop him? Hockey is a contact sport, and as long as kids keep playing they will continue to be hurt. It's not hitting from behind that's causing these injuries, it's HITTING PLAYERS FROM BEHIND INTO THE BOARDS! Let's change the rules - let's make driving someone from behind into the boards head first a penalty with some "bite" - 3/4 (or whatever) season suspension. Nobody thought the NHL could change the way the game was played by rule changes - look at an NHL game now vs. 15 years ago. Players aren't that dumb - they'll figure out pretty quickly what they can and can't get away with. IMHO

[philip18]

Years ago in some Canadian cities they made a stong law that pedestrians in the crosswalk had the right of way. Therefore peds started believing that they had the "right" to step into the walk whenever they wanted no matter the situation. Putting themselves in a dangerous situation.

The result was that over time more and more people were injured and killed while crossing the street. They are "dead right!"

We have trained our young players that hitting from behind is strongly against the rules and will feel very comfortable at putting themsevles in bad situations and hoping that they will not be injured. They should be assuming that they will hit from behind every time! This does not excuse the hit and it should be penalized.

The law of unintended consequences is tough.

[Haute hockeymom]

Years ago in some Canadian cities they made a stong law that pedestrians in the crosswalk had the right of way. Therefore peds started believing that they had the "right" to step into the walk whenever they wanted no matter the situation. Putting themselves in a dangerous situation.

The result was that over time more and more people were injured and killed while crossing the street. They are "dead right!"

You sure about this? The Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers did an evaluation of safety and effectiveness of pedestrian crosswalks in 2006. Their findings showed improved safety. Among their findings; Edmonton had a 40% decrease in the rate pedestrian - motor vehicle accidents at crosswalks from 1989 to 2000.