pioneers wrote:I was at the H-M EP game last night. There were quite a few occassions along the boards that in the past you would have seen a check thrown and the kids just didn't throw the check. There were two majors called, one for checking from behind and one boarding. One on each team.
Thank you for posting.....this is the EXACT change the new rules are attempting to result in. I don't get why so many people are up in arms about the changes. I am hearing accusations thrown toward the refs or that the players getting checked should know how to take a check better, seriously? Just don't check from behind or hit someone in the head and you avoid the penalty. I understand checking is part of the game but is the big hit really so important that some of you will go to these lengths to justify putting other players at risk? The purpose of a good check is to separate the player from the puck, not blow them up in the middle of the ice or along the boards. Yes, there are going to be the cases where a player turns their back at the last second and hopefully those players will get called too. But I'd much rather have the new rules in place even if it means a few unfair "game-changing" penalties are called over the alternative.
I would also encourage those of you complaining about checking being removed from peewee's to actually read more about the changes. The intent is to encourage body contact at an earlier age and educate kids at the squirts and peewee levels. Someone brought up kids not being able to drive until age 16 and the fact that there are still significantly more accidents for new drivers at that age......does that mean the solution is to start letting them drive at an earlier age? Their bodies and more importantly their brains need to develop. The people advocating for more skill and scoring goals are going in the right direction. You can either resist change and make a big fuss or find a way to make it work for you and your kid (who will likely follow your example.)
MNHockeyFan wrote:Maybe once players realize this they'll play more intelligently and take away the opportunity for the refs to determine the outcome of a game. After all, the whole purpose of the harsher penalties is to influence the behavior of the players so that the game becomes safer for everybody.
But wouldn't a double-minor have accomplished the same thing (influence the behavior of the player) without such a drastic effect on the outcome of the game itself?
If the MSHSL had decided to just impose a double minor instead of a five minute major, no I do not believe it would have had the same effect on player behavior. The whole purpose is for such infractions to have "a drastic effect on the outcome of the game itself" - if players and coaches knew it wouldn't be any big deal then what reason would they have to change their behavior?
I disagree. Four minutes in the box is plenty drastic, IMO.
My other fear is that the unintended consequence will be fewer penalties called. After the initial uptick of major penalties assessed, we'll see a gradual reduction of calls made because refs won't want to hand out major penalties for "borderline" infractions. It's human nature, most refs won't want to call something in the grey area for fear of them determining the outcome of the game.
Whereas a double-minor penalty will make it easier for the refs to make the calls. They know that a message will be sent to the player because he'll need to sit in the box for 4 minutes, yet won't feel like they are affecting the outcome of the game because the opponents can still only get a one goal advantage at the most.
I just feel this has been such a knee-jerk and emotional reaction to an awful incident...
Muck, those 4 minutes are significantly different from the 5 minutes.
Double minor can end very quickly if goals are scored. Major is the full 5 minutes no matter what.
If the MSHSL wants to send a priority message to the players, coaches and officials, this is the way to make it happen.
I don't agree or disagree, but the major penalty directive will likely change the aggressive part of the game.
Players will have to think about how and why they want to seperate an opponent from the puck. Before it was blast away, and no big deal. Now it's can I afford to make that potential illegal hit and cost my team 5 minutes.
inthestands wrote:Muck, those 4 minutes are significantly different from the 5 minutes.
Double minor can end very quickly if goals are scored. Major is the full 5 minutes no matter what.
If the MSHSL wants to send a priority message to the players, coaches and officials, this is the way to make it happen.
I don't agree or disagree, but the major penalty directive will likely change the aggressive part of the game.
Players will have to think about how and why they want to seperate an opponent from the puck. Before it was blast away, and no big deal. Now it's can I afford to make that potential illegal hit and cost my team 5 minutes.
I'm all for increasing player safety and awareness, but this is just plain nuts. Why the rush? It's all about PR. They could've (and should've) waited until the off-season and discuss the best method for dealing with this going forward, but they felt like they needed to do something fast because the spotlight was on them. Everyone feels awful about what happened to Jabs, and emotions are too raw right now.
Knee-jerk reactions almost ALWAYS lead down the path of unintended consequences....and this is a classic case of that.
Last edited by muckandgrind on Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
muckandgrind wrote:
My other fear is that the unintended consequence will be fewer penalties called. After the initial uptick of major penalties assessed, we'll see a gradual reduction of calls made because refs won't want to hand out major penalties for "borderline" infractions. It's human nature, most refs won't want to call something in the grey area for fear of them determining the outcome of the game.
This is a concern. In the game last night I already saw a reluctance to call the head contact rule, probably because the penalty for it is so severe and the infraction itself is usually perceived as not as dangerous as a check from behind or the boarding penalties.
muckandgrind wrote:
But you would also have to agree that there will be many bad calls made that will cost teams games. We see it all the time. Adding the major penalty will increase them ten-fold.
I'm all for increasing player safety and awareness, but this is just plain nuts. Why the rush? It's all about PR. They could've (and should've) waited until the off-season and discuss the best method for dealing with this going forward, but they felt like they needed to do something fast because the spotlight was on them. Everyone feels awful about what happened to Jabs, and emotions are too raw right now.
Knee-jerk reactions almost ALWAYS lead down the path of unintended consequences....and this is a classic case of that.
Muck, why does it have to cost teams games? If the players don't put themselves in a position to get called for that penalty isn't that the point? Yes, some questionable calls will be made but you're making it sound like we have completely incompetent refs, coaches, and players that won't be able to adapt. Don't put the refs in the position to decide the game and there isn't a problem. I don't disagree that it will happen, but I believe it will happen significantly less than what you are suggesting.
muckandgrind wrote:
But you would also have to agree that there will be many bad calls made that will cost teams games. We see it all the time. Adding the major penalty will increase them ten-fold.
You are right 100% that there is inconsistency in most games, whether it's on purpose or simply because we have humans reffing. Rarely do you see, though, penalties called that didn't actually happen.
We will have the same issue here; a check from behind happens with no call, then it happens again with a major.
Sure, there are bad calls, but the majority of "bad" calls are simply inconsistent calls.
muckandgrind wrote:
But you would also have to agree that there will be many bad calls made that will cost teams games. We see it all the time. Adding the major penalty will increase them ten-fold.
I'm all for increasing player safety and awareness, but this is just plain nuts. Why the rush? It's all about PR. They could've (and should've) waited until the off-season and discuss the best method for dealing with this going forward, but they felt like they needed to do something fast because the spotlight was on them. Everyone feels awful about what happened to Jabs, and emotions are too raw right now.
Knee-jerk reactions almost ALWAYS lead down the path of unintended consequences....and this is a classic case of that.
Muck, why does it have to cost teams games? If the players don't put themselves in a position to get called for that penalty isn't that the point? Yes, some questionable calls will be made but you're making it sound like we have completely incompetent refs, coaches, and players that won't be able to adapt. Don't put the refs in the position to decide the game and there isn't a problem. I don't disagree that it will happen, but I believe it will happen significantly less than what you are suggesting.
Hockey is a fast game. Things can happen in the blink of an eye. One player can turn his back or duck his head at the last second and take a nasty hit for which you can't blame the other player who hit them. We see 6'2" players laying clean checks on a players 5'5" and inadvertently hits him in the head. Is that dirty? Does that player deserve a major penalty for no other reason than he is taller then the other player and couldn't avoid the incidental contact to the head?
How about the player who turns his back at the last second along the boards to shield the puck from the opponent who can't stop in time to avoid contact. Is that a dirty hit? How many times have we seen that called checking from behind? Now it will be a major penalty and the "offending" player isn't even at fault!!!
And now referees have been put in the unenviable position of making those kind of calls. Bad move.
muckandgrind wrote:
My other fear is that the unintended consequence will be fewer penalties called. After the initial uptick of major penalties assessed, we'll see a gradual reduction of calls made because refs won't want to hand out major penalties for "borderline" infractions. It's human nature, most refs won't want to call something in the grey area for fear of them determining the outcome of the game.
This is a concern. In the game last night I already saw a reluctance to call the head contact rule, probably because the penalty for it is so severe and the infraction itself is usually perceived as not as dangerous as a check from behind or the boarding penalties.
Unfortunately the only way to prevent a ref being hesitant or reluctant to make the call is to remove all subjectivity from the call. If there is contact to the head, it gets called. I realize this is probably not going to be popular but if you truly want to enforce the rule it needs to be done. There is still plenty of room for good, solid checking but it needs to be taught better by coaches and parents. People can and will adapt.
muckandgrind wrote:
My other fear is that the unintended consequence will be fewer penalties called. After the initial uptick of major penalties assessed, we'll see a gradual reduction of calls made because refs won't want to hand out major penalties for "borderline" infractions. It's human nature, most refs won't want to call something in the grey area for fear of them determining the outcome of the game.
This is a concern. In the game last night I already saw a reluctance to call the head contact rule, probably because the penalty for it is so severe and the infraction itself is usually perceived as not as dangerous as a check from behind or the boarding penalties.
Unfortunately the only way to prevent a ref being hesitant or reluctant to make the call is to remove all subjectivity from the call. If there is contact to the head, it gets called. I realize this is probably not going to be popular but if you truly want to enforce the rule it needs to be done. There is still plenty of room for good, solid checking but it needs to be taught better by coaches and parents. People can and will adapt.
...and this is EXACTLY why they will be hesitant to make the call. Refs should have some discretion to determine a flagrant hit to the head and an incidental contact to the head. If they had some discretion, they could give the major for hits they deem flagrant and two minutes for those deemed incidental....and yes, there is some head contact that can't be avoided no matter HOW well-intentioned the players are.
Because, let's be honest, most infractions that are called are "subjective", aren't they?
Last edited by muckandgrind on Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
muckandgrind wrote:
Hockey is a fast game. Things can happen in the blink of an eye. One player can turn his back or duck his head at the last second and take a nasty hit for which you can't blame the other player who hit them. We see 6'2" players laying clean checks on a players 5'5" and inadvertently hits him in the head. Is that dirty? Does that player deserve a major penalty for no other reason than he is taller then the other player and couldn't avoid the incidental contact to the head?
How about the player who turns his back at the last second along the boards to shield the puck from the opponent who can't stop in time to avoid contact. Is that a dirty hit? How many times have we seen that called checking from behind? Now it will be a major penalty and the "offending" player isn't even at fault!!!
You're right, some of those things are going to happen. How often though? If those few instances are the indirect result of stricter rules when it comes to contact to the head and checking from behind I'm okay with that. Also, the 6'2" player can and should be aware that when he is going to check a 5'5" player he needs to use his lower body significantly more.
muckandgrind wrote:
Hockey is a fast game. Things can happen in the blink of an eye. One player can turn his back or duck his head at the last second and take a nasty hit for which you can't blame the other player who hit them. We see 6'2" players laying clean checks on a players 5'5" and inadvertently hits him in the head. Is that dirty? Does that player deserve a major penalty for no other reason than he is taller then the other player and couldn't avoid the incidental contact to the head?
How about the player who turns his back at the last second along the boards to shield the puck from the opponent who can't stop in time to avoid contact. Is that a dirty hit? How many times have we seen that called checking from behind? Now it will be a major penalty and the "offending" player isn't even at fault!!!
You're right, some of those things are going to happen. How often though? If those few instances are the indirect result of stricter rules when it comes to contact to the head and checking from behind I'm okay with that. Also, the 6'2" player can and should be aware that when he is going to check a 5'5" player he needs to use his lower body significantly more.
East to say.....
I would agree that if the larger player should try to avoid incidental contact when at all possible, but the fact that things happen in a split second sometimes makes contact unavoidable.
muckandgrind wrote:
...and this is EXACTLY why they will be hesitant to make the call. Refs should have some discretion to determine a flagrant hit to the head and an incidental contact to the head. If they had some discretion, they could give the major for hits they deem flagrant and two minutes for those deemed incidental....and yes, there is some head contact that can't be avoided no matter HOW well-intentioned the players are.
Because, let's be honest, most infractions that are called are "subjective", aren't they?
Agree to disagree then. Yes, most infractions are subjective but this is an area where that subjectivity can be removed. You really want to allow refs to have discretion as to what constitutes "incidental" contact to the head? Everyone has their own definition of what incidental is and the refs will get an earful from the coaches, parents, fans, and players everytime which eventually will influence their future decisions. Make it black and white.
After the referees huddled and discussed it, they ended up calling a minor on Serratore. In his defense it appears that MacWilliam did turn at the last second and in so doing he lost his leverage and took the worst of the collision. He ended up going face-first into the boards, and could have been seriously injured.
It's a very close call, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts - YOU BE THE JUDGE!
After the referees huddled and discussed it, they ended up calling a minor on Serratore. In his defense it appears that MacWilliam did turn at the last second and in so doing he lost his leverage and took the worst of the collision. He ended up going face-first into the boards, and could have been seriously injured.
It's a very close call, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts - YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Should be a cfb/major every time. Freeze it at the 6 second mark, MacWilliam's back is completely toward Serratore and nowhere before that was MacWilliam facing him. I get the check was delivered only 2 seconds later but a different decision easily could've been made. Why make that check and put your team in a difficult position when they are up 5-2 in the early part of the third period?
After the referees huddled and discussed it, they ended up calling a minor on Serratore. In his defense it appears that MacWilliam did turn at the last second and in so doing he lost his leverage and took the worst of the collision. He ended up going face-first into the boards, and could have been seriously injured.
It's a very close call, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts - YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Should be a cfb/major every time. Freeze it at the 6 second mark, MacWilliam's back is completely toward Serratore and nowhere before that was MacWilliam facing him. I get the check was delivered only 2 seconds later but a different decision easily could've been made. Why make that check and put your team in a difficult position when they are up 5-2 in the early part of the third period?
I'll even give you that one. Serratore had time to pull off that check....but I see better examples all the time where the checker didn't have nearly the amount of time. We're talking split-seconds.
After the referees huddled and discussed it, they ended up calling a minor on Serratore. In his defense it appears that MacWilliam did turn at the last second and in so doing he lost his leverage and took the worst of the collision. He ended up going face-first into the boards, and could have been seriously injured.
It's a very close call, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts - YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Should be a cfb/major every time. Freeze it at the 6 second mark, MacWilliam's back is completely toward Serratore and nowhere before that was MacWilliam facing him. I get the check was delivered only 2 seconds later but a different decision easily could've been made. Why make that check and put your team in a difficult position when they are up 5-2 in the early part of the third period?
I'll even give you that one. Serratore had time to pull off that check....but I see better examples all the time where the checker didn't have nearly the amount of time. We're talking split-seconds.
This is exactly what I keep saying:
Most examples that keep being brought up are checks that are major penalties anyway because they are either boarding or checking from behind. Even if you take the check from behind out of the play [if you want to claim he was intending a shoulder check] it was still a boarding play, which results in a major.
The examples of plays that were innocent, correctly non-penalties turning into majors are the exceptions, not the rule here.
This may be the best thing that could happen to Minnesota hockey. Dump and chase hockey looks a lot less attractive if it results in playing one or two players down most of the game. Coaches will be forced to change their game plan and that will change their focus. Players will need to learn how to play coordinated puck posession hockey. The high level of awarness required will make it impossible to skate heads down. This will result in fewer injuries, an emphasis on skill instead of physicality, and eventually to a larger number of Minnesotans in D1 and the NHL.
After the referees huddled and discussed it, they ended up calling a minor on Serratore. In his defense it appears that MacWilliam did turn at the last second and in so doing he lost his leverage and took the worst of the collision. He ended up going face-first into the boards, and could have been seriously injured.
It's a very close call, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts - YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Should be a cfb/major every time. Freeze it at the 6 second mark, MacWilliam's back is completely toward Serratore and nowhere before that was MacWilliam facing him. I get the check was delivered only 2 seconds later but a different decision easily could've been made. Why make that check and put your team in a difficult position when they are up 5-2 in the early part of the third period?
I'll even give you that one. Serratore had time to pull off that check....but I see better examples all the time where the checker didn't have nearly the amount of time. We're talking split-seconds.
We all need to remember that the players and officials only have those split seconds to react and respond appropriately.
Many of us have never had to make the same decisions, and shouldn't be trying to measure the good and bad of those that do.
It's pretty easy to look at a 10 second spot on a video, over and over to form opinions. When there's real life action, at ice level, the view is quite different than when we are in the stands...
We all need to remember that the players and officials only have those split seconds to react and respond appropriately.
Many of us have never had to make the same decisions, and shouldn't be trying to measure the good and bad of those that do.
It's pretty easy to look at a 10 second spot on a video, over and over to form opinions. When there's real life action, at ice level, the view is quite different than when we are in the stands...
So true.
It is very easy when sitting in the stands or on video.
nahc wrote:icehornet:
Are your skaters also soccer players?
Are you actually asking or insinuating something? Either way, the answer is no. They also aren't at the age where much of this comes into play, yet....
wildfan6866 wrote:This is by far the most frustrating thing I have seen in hockey in a long
time. I really do understand the serverity of the hit and how wrong it
was, but its been happening for years and it will still keep happening. The
reason for this is, kids are not being taught the right ways of approching a
puck (and i'm not blaming what happened on the kids that were hurt either). You can take away checking from the Pee Wee level, (which is completly riduclous)you can add more serverity to penalties, and what i see is some coming is lets get rid of checking all around. Well then don't play the game or ask someone that knows the game to teach you the right way to play. Kids should start checking in Squirt A's and I'm not saying all out drilling each other, rubbing out hard is what i"m talking about. The earlier they learn how, the safer it becomes. As a former Pee Wee A coach I taught the basics but i also taught a kid how to approch the puck so these things dont happen. I taught them how to take a check and give one. Here are a couple of easy ways, in practice start telling them to look at the glass to look for reflextions, the earlier they learn this the easier it gets(i still do it and play nocheck in old man league). Take a different approch at the puck, dont have your back to the guy thats behind you, angle so that when you do get hit your getting hit in the shoulder. Im sure there are more people out there also with good ideas on how to do protect yourself. So people ask your coaches to teach your childeren these simple ways to protect themselves. Also you need to teach kids when to pull up and where and what a good hits is. You can keep on adding stiffer penalties and more rules but if your kids are not taught the correct ways it will keep on happening. Here' one example of what your new rules are doing. Kid crosses the red line enterning the offensvie zone spins gets hit in open ice in the back, refs arm goes up, kid lost puck, pops up gos after the puck team mate gets control, the kid that was hit goes to the slot for a pass they lose control whistle blows(where the check in the corner to make them lose control was alot harder of a hit). Guess what hapened, mind you all happened in seconds. A checking from behind a 5 min and a 10. Well atleast they are learning how to sit in the box and not how to play the game. Oh and yes I do have a son playing high school hockey if you were wondering.
If only everybody thought this way... you are a logical man sir!
muckandgrind wrote:
Hockey is a fast game. Things can happen in the blink of an eye. One player can turn his back or duck his head at the last second and take a nasty hit for which you can't blame the other player who hit them. We see 6'2" players laying clean checks on a players 5'5" and inadvertently hits him in the head. Is that dirty? Does that player deserve a major penalty for no other reason than he is taller then the other player and couldn't avoid the incidental contact to the head?
How about the player who turns his back at the last second along the boards to shield the puck from the opponent who can't stop in time to avoid contact. Is that a dirty hit? How many times have we seen that called checking from behind? Now it will be a major penalty and the "offending" player isn't even at fault!!!
You're right, some of those things are going to happen. How often though? If those few instances are the indirect result of stricter rules when it comes to contact to the head and checking from behind I'm okay with that. Also, the 6'2" player can and should be aware that when he is going to check a 5'5" player he needs to use his lower body significantly more.
Maybe we should have drills where we practice hitting shorter players or the 5'5" guy stands straight up. That is about the most ridiculous statements made. Maybe shorter players can wear a colored stripe on their helment so defending players can significantly lower their body when checking them. Nobody likes to see injuries, but this is starting to get out of hand. Maybe just adopt the girls rules?
