The state now gets to see how MSHSL dropped the ball...

Slap Shot · Post by **Slap Shot** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:44 pm

north_bear wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but can't checking from behind and boarding be called in college and the NHL with a major penalty and game misconduct assessed?

I think contact to the head is only a minor penalty.

Anyway, the point is that these types of hits have been deemed dangerous and unneccesary in college and the NHL. I don't see how increasing the penalties for a high school player disrupts his path to success. Its not a bad thing to learn a little discipline on the ice.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Not surprising this heads up post is being ignored by the naysayers.

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:13 pm

Nobody seems to be arguing that dangerous hits from behind shouldn't be taken care of with majors and eliminated at all levels.

The issue is when you hand out major penalties for other physical plays in which the message seems to be "avoid hard contact in general".

HappyHockeyFan · Post by **HappyHockeyFan** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:03 am

icehornet wrote:
headsup wrote:I'm talking about non calls late in the games for clear violations AND weak calls early that will contradict the later (non) calls.

New rules or old rules... nothing works without consistency.
Yes, the rules need to be called consistently but you are calling the changes a failure after 8 games that you've seen? Your issue with consistency is very different than many other posters in this thread that think this is going to completely "change the game." Really? The sky is falling because the MSHSL wants to make the game safer by handing out a stiffer consequence for the most dangerous hits in the game? Is the point of the game still scoring goals or is it landing the biggest hit? There are no "new rules" the existing rules have been adapted to try discouraging players even more than in the past. If any of you really think this is going to hold kids back that aspire to play at higher levels you're kidding yourselves.

Thank you...finally someone sensible...

almostashappy · Post by **almostashappy** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:38 am

icehornet wrote: Is the point of the game still scoring goals or is it landing the biggest hit?

The point of the game is to score more goals that the other team. Aggressive physical play is one method of limiting an opponent's goal scoring ability. Not cheap shots, but aggressive physical play. The fear is that efforts to eliminate the former are endangering the latter.

Apply this line of reasoning to high school football, then pass out the flags. F

terrymoore1717 · Post by **terrymoore1717** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:27 am

Two things that are important to remember:

1. Terrible injuries can occur on a check from behind even if the hit is "weak". It takes surprisingly little pressure to break a neck that is bending the wrong way.

2. Higher levels (college and pro) all call major penalties for checks from behind in the right situation.

Also, Is there anyone here who is advocating that some checks from behind should be overlooked in the name of a "tougher" game. I would say that checking from behind is not at all a "tough guy" play. It is actually the opposite.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:27 am

Thank you...finally someone sensible...

[/quote]

Funny how you say they are sensible because they agree with you.

Can anyone be sensible that has a difference of opinion than yours on this topic?

To think that every top player will leave for juniors or other options would not be sensible, but to also think that these rule changes will not effect any players (and yes even those very skilled and not thugs) and their decision to play HS hockey in MN is also not sensible.

The junior teams are already promoting come here and play 50+ games why stay in HS for 20 and now you a quality player could lose 25% of those games due to an arbitrary call (maybe more if you school implemented even tougher penalties).

I have seen a lot of sensible arguments on both sides and then pick which to agree/disagree with.

But those that think this change is have nothing but positive changes have their heads in the sand much like those who think the sky is falling.

Bottom line is a mid season change has sent this season into a tail spin.

Question with these new changes has anyone still got hurt (ie; Broken arm, concussion, leg injury, slipped on the ice? )

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:43 am

Question with these new changes has anyone still got hurt (ie; Broken arm, concussion, leg injury, slipped on the ice? )

Well, if recent history proves anything, if anyone HAS been hurt with one of the injuries you list.....you can bet there will be more rule changes coming down the pipe effective immediately.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:44 am

headsup wrote:I'm talking about non calls late in the games for clear violations AND weak calls early that will contradict the later (non) calls.

New rules or old rules... nothing works without consistency.

You sound like someone that's had issues with officials consistency long before these recent changes?

I've seen a few games since the minor penatly option has been removed from the 3 calls on the forefront.

There has been a definate change in player attitude related to what they do when below the goal line, and when players are 1 to 3 feet away from the boards. That is a positive change. Any player making a hit from behind in those situations should be penalized every time.

As long as we have human officials, there are going to be questions regarding what calls are made, and fan opinion on those calls.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:53 am

terrymoore1717 wrote:Two things that are important to remember:

1. Terrible injuries can occur on a check from behind even if the hit is "weak". It takes surprisingly little pressure to break a neck that is bending the wrong way.

2. Higher levels (college and pro) all call major penalties for checks from behind in the right situation.

Also, Is there anyone here who is advocating that some checks from behind should be overlooked in the name of a "tougher" game. I would say that checking from behind is not at all a "tough guy" play. It is actually the opposite.

I've highlighted the important wording with regards to college and pro checking from behind penalties. There is no "zero tolerance". The referees have discretion. At the NHL level, if the ref feels the player who got hit in the back because he turned his back at the last second, there is no penalty called.

My beef isn't so much with the checking from behind majors...but the majors that will be given out for incidental contact to the head. I think the refs should be given the latitude to determine if the head contact was flagrant or incidental. If flagrant, give the major....if incidental, give a minor.....or even a double-minor. I just think the major is too severe a penalty for incidental contact.

On another note....someone brought up a good point in another thread about all the majors being called. One of the unintended consquences will be less icetime for players who are not on a special teams unit. If you are a 3rd or 4th line player who is not on either on PP or PK, you could very well see your ice time per game cut down dramatically.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:57 am

As predicted, "diving" "embellishment" or whatever you want to call it has entered the game.

I suggest a 5 minute MAJOR be added to the rule changes for deliberate attempts to draw these new major penalties.

Before anybody attacks this. I witnessed 5 obvious dives. The referees only called one 5+10 check from behind out of the 5 dives. One time the ref even chuckled and shook his head to say NO WAY on a really poor attempted dive.

If these new major penalties were put in place to CHANGE BEHAVIOR. Then adding a major for FAKE DIVING will change that behavior also. The way the kids are turning and standing near the boards waiting to feel a defender from behind, then launching themself into the boards is in fact very dangerous!

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:04 am

Terry Moore: I think we all know what is a "check from behind" and you are correct that is not a "tough guy" play and needed to be called for years.

What is being called a "check from behind" in the past week are not all checks from behind. Isn't hard to see the difference in how the games are being called.

The rules didn't change!!!!!!! Only the amount of time served.

almostashappy · Post by **almostashappy** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:54 am

BadgerBob82 wrote: If these new major penalties were put in place to CHANGE BEHAVIOR. Then adding a major for FAKE DIVING will change that behavior also. The way the kids are turning and standing near the boards waiting to feel a defender from behind, then launching themself into the boards is in fact very dangerous!

I'm sympathetic to this argument, although it is going to be really hard for a referee to determine whether a player is intentionally trying to draw a 5+10.

The rule changes and stricter enforcement are trying to prevent players from putting others at risk of serious injury. The MSHSL should be just as vigilant when it comes to modifying player behaviors that put themselves at risk. Don't just penalize unsportsmanlike attempts to draw a check from behind...get serious about enforcing mouthguard penalties!

icehornet · Post by **icehornet** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:38 am

Bronc wrote: The junior teams are already promoting come here and play 50+ games why stay in HS for 20 and now you a quality player could lose 25% of those games due to an arbitrary call (maybe more if you school implemented even tougher penalties).

I have seen a lot of sensible arguments on both sides and then pick which to agree/disagree with.

But those that think this change is have nothing but positive changes have their heads in the sand much like those who think the sky is falling.

Bottom line is a mid season change has sent this season into a tail spin.

Question with these new changes has anyone still got hurt (ie; Broken arm, concussion, leg injury, slipped on the ice? )

Any player could get a 4 game suspension but the way you are using it in your argument it almost sounds likely. I am willing to bet that VERY few kids will serve this level of punishment. You appear to expect a significant number of "incidental" majors being called where I don't see that happening nearly as much (especially once the refs/players/coaches have a little more time to adapt.)

The season isn't in a tailspin by any means, all the games are still being played and everyone is adjusting.

I don't think anyone expects the changes to prevent injuries but the goal is simply to reduce the risk of severe injuries. We will only know the difference in those numbers after a few years. These changes have only been in place for a week and I've seen all kinds of assumptions about what these changes will or won't do, give them some time and then make your arguments based on what has actually happened versus what people assume will happen.

I do agree that those trying to draw a penalty need to be penalized as well.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:00 pm

Before we wait several years to see if changing minor penalties to majors helps reduce injuries.

Can anyone provide stats on the number of injuries prior to the Jack Jablonski injury? JV or Varsity stats?

My memory is getting bad, but I can't seem to remember any major injuries. I seem to remember a slapshot to the heart that ended a career. But can somebody help me with some history.

icehornet · Post by **icehornet** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:02 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Before we wait several years to see if changing minor penalties to majors helps reduce injuries.

Can anyone provide stats on the number of injuries prior to the Jack Jablonski injury? JV or Varsity stats?

My memory is getting bad, but I can't seem to remember any major injuries. I seem to remember a slapshot to the heart that ended a career. But can somebody help me with some history.

Is a concussion considered a major injury? Considering the lifelong effects it can have I'd say it is.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:07 pm

almostashappy: Just to get your point correct. It would be hard for a referee to determine if a player is taking a dive? Isn't EVERY call by a referee a judgement call?

I understand some kids are very good at faking, with years of experience at the Youth level. Others aren't very good as they just started last week. But when a player comes in slowly and under control. Touches a kid to press him to the boards and the kid explodes. I think it is fairly obvious to enderstand the physics.

We have all seen this acting for years in front of the net when a D-man pushes with a "cross-check" and the kid explodes face first to the ice.

Diving is dangerous. 5 minute major needs to be added. Or else the rule change will made a mockery.

The rules haven't changed! Just the time of the penalty. Refs that didn't do their jobs in the past need to start doing them now!

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:14 pm

I would not call concussion a catostrophic injury at the level of Jack Jablonski's?

icehornet · Post by **icehornet** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:53 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:I would not call concussion a catostrophic injury at the level of Jack Jablonski's?

That's quite obvious, not sure how you equated me asking if a concussion is a major injury to the same level as what happened to Jack. The point of changing the rules is to reduce the risk of a serious injury happening. What happened to Jack is as severe as you can get on the spectrum, but considering the lifelong effects concussions can have and the amount of time players at all levels are now being held out due to them I would say they are "major, serious, etc."

In fact, to Bronc's argument about why would kids stay in high school and risk being suspended for 25% of the season I could just as easily argue the new changes will result in less kids getting concussions or injuries that cause them to be out for longer periods of time. This change will result in a better chance that kids miss less time due to an injury. While I think this in itself is a rather ridiculous argument it parallels very well against kids leaving due to the "risk" of being out 4 games for getting major penalties called against them.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:01 pm

icehornet wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:I would not call concussion a catostrophic injury at the level of Jack Jablonski's?
That's quite obvious, not sure how you equated me asking if a concussion is a major injury to the same level as what happened to Jack. The point of changing the rules is to reduce the risk of a serious injury happening. What happened to Jack is as severe as you can get on the spectrum, but considering the lifelong effects concussions can have and the amount of time players at all levels are now being held out due to them I would say they are "major, serious, etc."

In fact, to Bronc's argument about why would kids stay in high school and risk being suspended for 25% of the season I could just as easily argue the new changes will result in less kids getting concussions or injuries that cause them to be out for longer periods of time. This change will result in a better chance that kids miss less time due to an injury. While I think this in itself is a rather ridiculous argument it parallels very well against kids leaving due to the "risk" of being out 4 games for getting major penalties called against them.

Most players are not on the ice worrying about these injuries. They are worried about the penalties they are going to get and ruin their chances of playing and their teams ability to win.

Make no mistake the players (refs & coaches) are lost right now regardless how us adults want to spin it and all though games are going on the out comes have been altered.

I am not condoning thugs or against keeping the game safe, but this has gone overboard.

2pipesnin · Post by **2pipesnin** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:42 pm

In some of the previous posts individuals were stating that ref’s need to take responsibility and coaches need to take responsibility…. What about the players? Should they not take responsible for their actions as well? That is why there are rules for the game of hockey to be played the way it was intended. It would be interesting to ask some hockey players (high school and college level) what they think of the new rule changes. Not the coaches or the parents opinion but some players, one on one and see if they also feel that game needs to change (made safer).

Football has made changes over the last few years to protect the quarterback and receivers from “contact to the head” and that did not seem to create any uprising of the parents or coaches or fans.

In the last 25 years the game has not changed….but the players sure have. We now have more players at every level that are faster, stronger, quicker and more conditioned then ever before. The initial use of the body check in hockey was to separate the player from the puck, not to separate a bone or cause a concussion. Look at the Pee Wee level. They took out checking this year and we will not know for a few years if that will improve the number of players staying in hockey and if their skill level will improve by the time they are Bantams. A lot of opinions and skeptics out there but no one will know for sure for a few years. The same will be with the new penalty structure. No one knows if it will ruin the game. So let the players play, let the coach’s coach good fundamental hockey and let the referees call the game the way the book says.

In an earlier post someone wanted to know if anyone heard of serious hockey injury in the past. Not important. What is important is to trying to prevent the injury (nightmare) to anyone in the future. Accidents will happen but we must try to put strict rules in play to protect the players. I am a father to a hockey player, a coach, a former referee and a hockey fan, I don’t believe these rules will ruin anyone’s career. It just might save it!
[/list]

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:59 pm

The rules have NOT changed! Only the amount of time served in the penalty box. A Major penalty is an option for the ref on any minor. The refs were not calling the rules as written. Now, with a 5 minute mandate, the rules have magically changed for what is and what used to be a penalty?

And we have opened the door to a greater reward for diving! A new skill has been developed.

icehornet · Post by **icehornet** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:17 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:The rules have NOT changed! Only the amount of time served in the penalty box. A Major penalty is an option for the ref on any minor. The refs were not calling the rules as written. Now, with a 5 minute mandate, the rules have magically changed for what is and what used to be a penalty?

And we have opened the door to a greater reward for diving! A new skill has been developed.

If people are actually more concerned (and seemingly hellbent) about "diving" than the legitimate safety of the kids on the ice there is something very wrong with that line of thinking.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:34 pm

icehornet wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:The rules have NOT changed! Only the amount of time served in the penalty box. A Major penalty is an option for the ref on any minor. The refs were not calling the rules as written. Now, with a 5 minute mandate, the rules have magically changed for what is and what used to be a penalty?

And we have opened the door to a greater reward for diving! A new skill has been developed.
If people are actually more concerned (and seemingly hellbent) about "diving" than the legitimate safety of the kids on the ice there is something very wrong with that line of thinking.

Where has anyone said they're not concerned about the safety of the players??? Can't you be concerned about both? Or has the hysteria reached such a level that if you question whether or not these rules are well though out that you somehow don't care about player safety?

It's YOUR thinking that only re-enforces my opinion that new rules (or laws) should NEVER be created when the emotions of a tragedy are still raw.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:38 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:The rules have NOT changed! Only the amount of time served in the penalty box. A Major penalty is an option for the ref on any minor. The refs were not calling the rules as written. Now, with a 5 minute mandate, the rules have magically changed for what is and what used to be a penalty?

And we have opened the door to a greater reward for diving! A new skill has been developed.

BB82, I think the emphasis has forced those officials that tried to sluff off a check from behind as a cross check, to being called correctly but outside of that I'm confused as to what "magically" changed about penalty calling?

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:45 pm

muckandgrind wrote:
icehornet wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:The rules have NOT changed! Only the amount of time served in the penalty box. A Major penalty is an option for the ref on any minor. The refs were not calling the rules as written. Now, with a 5 minute mandate, the rules have magically changed for what is and what used to be a penalty?

And we have opened the door to a greater reward for diving! A new skill has been developed.
If people are actually more concerned (and seemingly hellbent) about "diving" than the legitimate safety of the kids on the ice there is something very wrong with that line of thinking.
Where has anyone said they're not concerned about the safety of the players??? Can't you be concerned about both? Or has the hysteria reached such a level that if you question whether or not these rules are well though out that you somehow don't care about player safety?

It's YOUR thinking that only re-enforces my opinion that new rules (or laws) should NEVER be created when the emotions of a tragedy are still raw.

Well Stated