muckandgrind wrote:I'll say it again that I think this was rushed into implementation way too fast. What they should've done is take a deep breath, open this subject up to discussion between the HS League and coaches, determine a plan of attack, spend the off season educating both officials and coaches on what the changes will be, and start next season with whatever new changes they come up with.
Hasty decisions and knee-jerk reactions almost always lead to poor decisions in the long run. I hope I'm wrong.
I agree, but I also agree with Murphy's Law, and acknowledge the power of CYA.
Can you imagine the outrage if another serious injury occurred while the MSHSL was taking that deep breath?
Changing the rules doesn't prevent anything though.... Accidents will still happen in the future because LIFE is dangerous no matter what.
Does everybody on this forum know what sport causes the most paralyzing injuries?
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
Changing the rules doesn't prevent anything though.... Accidents will still happen in the future because LIFE is dangerous no matter what.
Does everybody on this forum know what sport causes the most paralyzing injuries?
Answer: Cheerleading.
I hear some talking about these HUGE changes. The rules haven't changed, they are being enforced more strictly (as they should be) and the consequence has become more severe. It's not as if new penalties/rules have been added to the game here. Some people are trying to make this much bigger than what it is when the purpose is to protect the kids better.
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
Changing the rules doesn't prevent anything though.... Accidents will still happen in the future because LIFE is dangerous no matter what.
Does everybody on this forum know what sport causes the most paralyzing injuries?
Answer: Cheerleading.
I hear some talking about these HUGE changes. The rules haven't changed, they are being enforced more strictly (as they should be) and the consequence has become more severe. It's not as if new penalties/rules have been added to the game here. Some people are trying to make this much bigger than what it is when the purpose is to protect the kids better.
I consider having the possibility of a game being almost all special teams as a drastic change. Just my opinion of the meaning of the word drastic in this context.
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
I consider having the possibility of a game being almost all special teams as a drastic change. Just my opinion of the meaning of the word drastic in this context.
In the beginning that may be the case, but wouldn't playing on the PK a significant part of the game encourage players/coaches/teams to not take those penalties? Isn't that the whole point? It's not like the refs are just calling a major for the sake of it. Some infraction has to occur and while there will be "incidental" majors I think it will be far less than what some are suggesting.
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
I consider having the possibility of a game being almost all special teams as a drastic change. Just my opinion of the meaning of the word drastic in this context.
In the beginning that may be the case, but wouldn't playing on the PK a significant part of the game encourage players/coaches/teams to not take those penalties? Isn't that the whole point? It's not like the refs are just calling a major for the sake of it. Some infraction has to occur and while there will be "incidental" majors I think it will be far less than what some are suggesting.
I understand this way of thinking.... but
The bottom line is: Rules do not protect kids, only kids protect kids. So let's teach them how to play the game right, and also protect themselves because you never know when some nut job will run you into the boards so you must always be ready for that.
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
I understand this way of thinking.... but
The bottom line is: Rules do not protect kids, only kids protect kids. So let's teach them how to play the game right, and also protect themselves because you never know when some nut job will run you into the boards so you must always be ready for that.
Completely agree those things still need to be taught. However, the changes that have been made go more along the lines that by giving a more severe consequence for the harsher (see dangerous) infractions is also a good way to discourage them from occurring, IMO.
Last edited by icehornet on Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:
I consider having the possibility of a game being almost all special teams as a drastic change. Just my opinion of the meaning of the word drastic in this context.
In the beginning that may be the case, but wouldn't playing on the PK a significant part of the game encourage players/coaches/teams to not take those penalties? Isn't that the whole point? It's not like the refs are just calling a major for the sake of it. Some infraction has to occur and while there will be "incidental" majors I think it will be far less than what some are suggesting.
I understand this way of thinking.... but
The bottom line is: Rules do not protect kids, only kids protect kids. So let's teach them how to play the game right, and also protect themselves because you never know when some nut job will run you into the boards so you must always be ready for that.
So instead of making rules for drinking and driving, should we just teach drivers to be more conscious of the other drivers on the road that may be driving poorly?
I could go on, but I won't; this line of thinking done by adults is simply ridiculous.
seek & destroy wrote:In my opinion, rule changes should be more thought out and deliberated.
How much more thought out do you want them to be? This decision was clearly thought out and is accomplishing what they have intended; play they want out of the HS game is being punished. Period.
www.mnsportsnetwork.com archives their games; I encourage you to watch the SSM game from last night, or the ones against Breck/BSM coming up. They are better than every team we have, are more physical than probably any team we have and don't play the game this way. Any way you put it it's not good hockey to be doing the things that are being punished and defending it is defending bad hockey.
To seek & destroy I ask: why wait? As many have said, rules to prevent these injuries have been in place for years. The MSHSL's actions give license to officials to freely and strongly enforce them. This action (we hope) also reduces objections from whiny coaches.
As for divers and crybabies? I can't stand 'em either So give 'em two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. This rule, too, has been on the books for years.
Let's stop looking for reasons to keep cheap and dirty behavior in the game.
TheClipper wrote:To seek & destroy I ask: why wait? As many have said, rules to prevent these injuries have been in place for years. The MSHSL's actions give license to officials to freely and strongly enforce them. This action (we hope) also reduces objections from whiny coaches.
As for divers and crybabies? I can't stand 'em either So give 'em two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. This rule, too, has been on the books for years.
Let's stop looking for reasons to keep cheap and dirty behavior in the game.
I will clearly state that I do not like the new rules. They were added too fast and, in my opinion, not needed. I hate dirty hits just as much as the next guy and I am a big proponent that we need to clean up the game and make it safer. However, the rules were already in place and only required a memo from MSHSL to all refs that they need to call those types of penalties more closely.
Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. They should be well thought out and discussed at length to determine a) if they're needed b) the best way to implement them. There was a much heightened awareness of the issue due to the terrible tragedies that occurred. Refs were going to call things more closely and coaches were going to impress on kids that dirty hits are not acceptable. But, before they could give that a chance, rules were changed over a weekend.
Again, I hate dirty hits and I never want to see another player experience a tragic injury. But I don't believe that there were that many players deliberately playing dirty or coaches at the H.S. level telling their kids to play dirty. There are quite a few players that lack some discipline and some can't handle the high speed with control...they are most dangerous. Having a ref make a determination of whether the intent was there to injure is a valuable part of the game in order to not have players lobbying for penalty calls. The fact that refs were getting soft on calls (in large part due to a lot of complaining by coaches, players & fans) is something that could have been corrected without changing the rules. Refs would have listened if told to call the game more tightly and, if coaches/players/fans had to back off of whining when a call went against them, more calls would have been made. I'm not defending the refs not calling them the way they should have been called, I'm just saying that if they got 'soft' it may have been because they were trying to limit drawing the ire of the coaches or crowd by calling too many major penalties.
Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.
First, I thought it would be nice to put my whole statement up on this stream being some people are picking and choosing quotes from it.
Second, I agree that the rules have been there for years...that is my point! Why make a quick decision on a change (and yes, this is a change) when the better approach may have been to let refs, coaches and players know that we are going to ENFORCE the rules on the books to a tighter degree. I think the game would have changed without the MSHSL coming out with their changes AND we would still have more flexibility for refs to use discretion on what is the proper call. I think something needed to be done but I think communicating clearly that enforcement would be tighter could have had the same impact.
I've never experienced less energy and excitement attending a rivalry game than this one. the players seemed to be over-compensating for how things might be called, passing up the correct physical response for the hockey situation time and time again. that includes players on both sides.
i saw no difference in the officiating connected to the revisions.
i hope this isn't illustrative of things to come the rest of the high school hockey season.
I've never experienced less energy and excitement attending a rivalry game than this one. the players seemed to be over-compensating for how things might be called, passing up the correct physical response for the hockey situation time and time again. that includes players on both sides.
i saw no difference in the officiating connected to the revisions.
i hope this isn't illustrative of things to come the rest of the high school hockey season.
The players and the referees are all still adjusting to the stiffer penalties. They will get used to it and by the end of the season you will forget they are in place until one is called.
In a game I saw tonight.... A player was carrying the puck up, into the neutral zone, and for some reason did a 180 degree turn just as the D-man was stepping up to play the body. Open ice hit. No boards contact. The result: checking from behind 5min major + 10 min. misconduct.
Now, was this hit dangerous? of course not. Was is unfair to the defensemen delivering the check? of course. Was this a clear effect of the changed rules and could have significantly affected the game? of course.
Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
This is the interpretation I spoke of earlier. Puck carrier turned because he lost the puck and was trying to gain possession. The defender had time to play that differently.
If this same play wasn't called last week, it should have been.
You say you hate dirty play, you say we need to clean up the game, you say we need to make the game safer, but you clearly don't want to do this too quickly. How, exactly, would you make the game safer? What exactly is your time frame? Gimme a number.
Knee jerk reaction? Aren't two devastating spinal cord injuries in one week enough reason for change?
The MSHSL issues a blizzard of memos every week. How is one more going to make a difference? If someone was threatening your physical well being would you send him a memo?
Every night, in every rink in the state, referees threaten to call a close game Every one of these games looks exactly like the previous game, and nothing has changed in twenty years.
Please, stop this nonsense about referees measuring "intent", and coaches "impressing" upon their players that dirty play is "unacceptable".
Intent and unacceptable behavior are meaningless concepts when someone's been drilled in the back or elbowed in the head.
If you truly want a cleaner, safer game these rule changes, and a zero tolerance policy, are a great start.
nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
This is the interpretation I spoke of earlier. Puck carrier turned because he lost the puck and was trying to gain possession. The defender had time to play that differently.
If this same play wasn't called last week, it should have been.
AHhhhhhh, sure good to see all the Moday Morning Quarterbacks in action here....quite amazing!
nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
This is the interpretation I spoke of earlier. Puck carrier turned because he lost the puck and was trying to gain possession. The defender had time to play that differently.
If this same play wasn't called last week, it should have been.
AHhhhhhh, sure good to see all the Moday Morning Quarterbacks in action here....quite amazing!
nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play, http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind
This is the interpretation I spoke of earlier. Puck carrier turned because he lost the puck and was trying to gain possession. The defender had time to play that differently.
If this same play wasn't called last week, it should have been.
Exactly. The defender waited til the offensive player turned his back, then started to check him...in the back.
The correct call for that play last week was checking from behind and it still is. The fact that many penalties were often not called doesn't mean the infraction change is bad.
elliott70 wrote:The way I see it is the defender was skating backwards and got run into.
Obviously it is happening much faster on the ice, in real time.
Okay, we'll say that's what happened.
After he was "run into," what did the defensive player do?
inthestands wrote:
This is the interpretation I spoke of earlier. Puck carrier turned because he lost the puck and was trying to gain possession. The defender had time to play that differently.
If this same play wasn't called last week, it should have been.
AHhhhhhh, sure good to see all the Moday Morning Quarterbacks in action here....quite amazing!
What do you find is so amazing?
All the "quarterback" expertise provided by video watchers and spectators....
Last edited by ref101 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
You say you hate dirty play, you say we need to clean up the game, you say we need to make the game safer, but you clearly don't want to do this too quickly. How, exactly, would you make the game safer? What exactly is your time frame? Gimme a number.
Knee jerk reaction? Aren't two devastating spinal cord injuries in one week enough reason for change?
The MSHSL issues a blizzard of memos every week. How is one more going to make a difference? If someone was threatening your physical well being would you send him a memo?
Every night, in every rink in the state, referees threaten to call a close game Every one of these games looks exactly like the previous game, and nothing has changed in twenty years.
Please, stop this nonsense about referees measuring "intent", and coaches "impressing" upon their players that dirty play is "unacceptable".
Intent and unacceptable behavior are meaningless concepts when someone's been drilled in the back or elbowed in the head.
If you truly want a cleaner, safer game these rule changes, and a zero tolerance policy, are a great start.
Zero tolerance never works.
As much as I feel for the families of both injured players, these were FREAK occurances. Extremely rare in the world of hockey. No need for the knee-jerk rush to implement these rule changes other than public relations.
Decisions made in haste usually turn out to be poor ones.
If the Wayzata player does not finish through the check then this is not a penalty but he made no attempt to hold up and finished through the check. By definition this is the ideal open ice check from behind. The opponents head even makes contact first in that whipping like motion that makes this hit dangerous.
The referee made the correct call and whether it was last week or this week the same call should be made and the only difference is time in the box.
So say what you want about not liking the new enforcement but that player should have known better and never should have finished through the check if he made any attempt to hold up it more than likely is not a penalty at all. IMO of course
these were FREAK occurances. Extremely rare in the world of hockey. No need for the knee-jerk rush to implement these rule changes other than public relations.
No. No. No. The extent of the injuries were extreme, and thank goodness they're rare. The actions that caused them, however, were unacceptable and all too common. Zero tolerance measures work extremely well, even if they do result in whining by the punished party.
these were FREAK occurances. Extremely rare in the world of hockey. No need for the knee-jerk rush to implement these rule changes other than public relations.
No. No. No. The extent of the injuries were extreme, and thank goodness they're rare. The actions that caused them, however, were unacceptable and all too common. Zero tolerance measures work extremely well, even if they do result in whining by the punished party.
This is why the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes into play:
Because of "zero tolerance" and EVERY call of checking from behind, head contact or boarding will be five minutes REGARDLESS of whether or not the call was the result of intentional or incidental contact, you will start seeing referees swallow their whistles if they feel the contact was "borderline". Whereas in the past, they would've made the call most of the time, now doubt will start to creep into their mind and they will question as to whether or not the hit was such as to warrant a drastic and game changing penalty.
These refs are human just like us and will be feeling the pressure. Right now, it's all KOOM-BY-AH, refs are calling everything because the spotlight is glaring....but next year and the years after the spotlight will dim and you will see MORE viscous hits because we'll see fewer and fewer calls made. And then, it will be back to the drawing board.
I'm all for cleaning the up the game....I just doubt that these changes will do anything in the long run but make matter worse.
Last edited by muckandgrind on Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
