Minnesota Hockey Rules Changes - Effective 25 January 2012

[TheSiouxSuck]

My biggest problem with this is boarding being a 5 minute major. Someone else brought up that its such a discretionary call and my feeling is the checking changes at the youth level are counteracting the new safety changes.

When I was in youth hockey I was taught countless times to keep my head up and when I saw an opposing player lining me up for a hit to move my body towards the boards so it would absorb the impact. Kids need to be learning this at an early age so it can become a habit rather than when they're 14 years old and have possibly 10 years of bad habits already developed.

Its become very apparent that most peewee coaches are simply ignoring their unwanted responsibility of teaching their players how to check (why would they teach something that their players cant use?).

While I applaud the checking from behind changes, how did Minnesota hockey address fair play points? At the bantam level more than 14 minutes disqualifies you for your FPP, does a checking from behind (which lets be honest, horrible CFB calls are now going to be made) automatically DQ your team from its FPP since it'll now be worth 15 minutes?

[Hockey-Girl]

From the Minnesota Hockey meetings over the weekend:

Effective Wednesday January 25, 2012 the following penalties will be changed:

Checking from behind will be a major plus a misconduct or 5 & 10

Boarding will be a major - 5 minutes.

Not surprising. Luckily it doesn't effect many players because they don't allow kids to learn checking in game situations until they are nearly in high school now.

The STOP sign, HEP points, banning checking at PW's and yet during the last month many have said high school is gotten more dangerous than ever. Their solutions don't seem to work but I would guess they won't consider that; they'll blame the refs, coaches and lack of education - can anyone say "another new mandatory module" to pay for.

Seek and Destroy - your name says it all. Why don't we ALL try to make the game safer. I applaude the new rule change. This mom wants her boys, and your boys, to be SAFE out there!

[elliott70]

From the Minnesota Hockey meetings over the weekend:

Effective Wednesday January 25, 2012 the following penalties will be changed:

Checking from behind will be a major plus a misconduct or 5 & 10

Boarding will be a major - 5 minutes.

Is the "head contact" penalty still a 2:00?

yes, with ref can make it a major...
no chnage here.

[elliott70]

AND, since MN Hockey has now taken the USA Hockey Playing Rules into their own hands. MN Hockey MUST mandate a minimum of 2 referees on the ice for EVERY game. A linesman or 2 can be added. But TWO REFEREES must be on the ice for every game!

USAH allows the 2 2 system.

I talked iwth MH rep to USAH and he would likeit to go to 2 & 2, BUT it has not chnaged as everything else sort of got in the way.

I may use it in D16 if I can get enough people to do it and go along with it.

[elliott70]

AND, since MN Hockey has now taken the USA Hockey Playing Rules into their own hands. MN Hockey MUST mandate a minimum of 2 referees on the ice for EVERY game. A linesman or 2 can be added. But TWO REFEREES must be on the ice for every game!

Also, the local affiliate (MH) can make a stricter penalty than USAH.
We had to suspend the rules to do it which take 100% approval so it was a toss up.

[elliott70]

We understand that ramping things up is not a cure all, but we felt we needed to send a message to players, coaches, officials, fans that CFB is dnagerous and needs to be on every persons mind.

A further study to determine if ANYTHING can be done to minimize the risk is in process.

Jablonski family is asking for things to be done. Perhaps we should listen and try.

Suggestions are welcome.

Here's a suggestion. . . .quit making knee jerk reactions to a single situation!!!! I'm presuming that Minnesota Hockey had exactly the same data the MSHSL had when they made their reaction. . . NONE!!!

I would appreciate if you could tell us all what studies have been done comparing injuries to penalties. We spent months (years?) examining whether checking should be banned at PeeWees. People chose to disagree, but it was a major change and was approached as such. This is another major change, what calculated process was followed?

Also, please elaborate, I believe the refs are certified by USA Hockey. Have they approved this change?

The refs have no vote, only a voice.

[elliott70]

My biggest problem with this is boarding being a 5 minute major. Someone else brought up that its such a discretionary call and my feeling is the checking changes at the youth level are counteracting the new safety changes.

When I was in youth hockey I was taught countless times to keep my head up and when I saw an opposing player lining me up for a hit to move my body towards the boards so it would absorb the impact. Kids need to be learning this at an early age so it can become a habit rather than when they're 14 years old and have possibly 10 years of bad habits already developed.

Its become very apparent that most peewee coaches are simply ignoring their unwanted responsibility of teaching their players how to check (why would they teach something that their players cant use?).

While I applaud the checking from behind changes, how did Minnesota hockey address fair play points? At the bantam level more than 14 minutes disqualifies you for your FPP, does a checking from behind (which lets be honest, horrible CFB calls are now going to be made) automatically DQ your team from its FPP since it'll now be worth 15 minutes?

My proposal was CFB only for major and a 2X minor for boarding.
It was not considered.

[seek & destroy]

From the Minnesota Hockey meetings over the weekend:

Effective Wednesday January 25, 2012 the following penalties will be changed:

Checking from behind will be a major plus a misconduct or 5 & 10

Boarding will be a major - 5 minutes.

Not surprising. Luckily it doesn't effect many players because they don't allow kids to learn checking in game situations until they are nearly in high school now.

The STOP sign, HEP points, banning checking at PW's and yet during the last month many have said high school is gotten more dangerous than ever. Their solutions don't seem to work but I would guess they won't consider that; they'll blame the refs, coaches and lack of education - can anyone say "another new mandatory module" to pay for.

Seek and Destroy - your name says it all. Why don't we ALL try to make the game safer. I applaude the new rule change. This mom wants her boys, and your boys, to be SAFE out there!

I want the kids to be safe too! The rules (and minutes served) that were in place were perfectly fine to accomplish that. The heightened awareness to potential injuries would have made it easier for a ref to make those calls and not have people whining. What I didn't think was necessary was the automatic increase to a major penalty being mandated for the refs. The option for them to call it in certain cases was always available based on their discretion.

[elliott70]

Determination of Fair Play points will be based on the old penalty times.

[The Enlightened One]

We understand that ramping things up is not a cure all, but we felt we needed to send a message to players, coaches, officials, fans that CFB is dnagerous and needs to be on every persons mind.

A further study to determine if ANYTHING can be done to minimize the risk is in process.

Jablonski family is asking for things to be done. Perhaps we should listen and try.

Suggestions are welcome.

Put checking back into PeeWees so that the kids can learn to do it right when they are at a slower speed with less mass and then tell the refs to call the rules as stated. It gripes me when I see refs look the other way to let them play when it is a head contact or checking from behind. I think that if you take away the ref cert from a few of these old school guys who won't make the call you can fix it without getting crazy............

[elliott70]

I hope I have responded to everyone's questions and comments.

This si a very difficult situation as everyone wants to be as safe as possible.

My proposal was to start checking/body contact education, training and practice(game) at an earlier age. Start with Dzone only and progress.
Also, require coaches to start year with checking/body contact with emphasis on CFB and the negative implication.

I believe it is still in the bin to be discussed.

[JoltDelivered]

While I applaud the checking from behind changes, how did Minnesota hockey address fair play points? At the bantam level more than 14 minutes disqualifies you for your FPP, does a checking from behind (which lets be honest, horrible CFB calls are now going to be made) automatically DQ your team from its FPP since it'll now be worth 15 minutes?

Just got my form letter e-mail from Minnesota hockey stating there will be an equivalency conversion on PIM when calculating HEP points. This is copied and pasted directly from the e-mail:

"During this pilot, HEP Fair Point calculations are not changing. When tabulating total Fair Play penalty minutes, the "equivalency" penalty minute for the first level boarding and checking from behind remain the same; Boarding, 2 minute minor and checking from behind, 2 minute minor and 10 minute misconduct."

[woodley]

We understand that ramping things up is not a cure all, but we felt we needed to send a message to players, coaches, officials, fans that CFB is dnagerous and needs to be on every persons mind.

A further study to determine if ANYTHING can be done to minimize the risk is in process.

Jablonski family is asking for things to be done. Perhaps we should listen and try.

Suggestions are welcome.

Here's a suggestion. . . .quit making knee jerk reactions to a single situation!!!! I'm presuming that Minnesota Hockey had exactly the same data the MSHSL had when they made their reaction. . . NONE!!!

I would appreciate if you could tell us all what studies have been done comparing injuries to penalties. We spent months (years?) examining whether checking should be banned at PeeWees. People chose to disagree, but it was a major change and was approached as such. This is another major change, what calculated process was followed?

Also, please elaborate, I believe the refs are certified by USA Hockey. Have they approved this change?

The refs have no vote, only a voice.

I meant USA Hockey. . .

[woodley]

Elliott,

Were these rule changes ever discussed at Minnesota Hockey prior to Jack Jablonski????

[rudy]

why should boys hockey at ALL levels not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. it seems almost certain that it would make the game safer for boys -- and this is our paramount interest, we are being told -- and "girls" rules would leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations.

why not that fix in the name of safety?

[rudy]

Star Tribune reporter ML Smith wants to hear from people tonight who don't like the revisions in the penalties.

Contact her at marylynn.smith@startribune.com.

[luvuvgame]

First, while I don't necessarily agree with the decision, I do not think it is as detrimental for peewee & bantams as it is for high school players. Reason being the youth kids are playing 50-70 games vs. high school players who only have 25.
I agree with the earlier post who discussed the incidents in which check from behinds occur. I think if 2 kids are racing for the puck & the both deliver checks to each other & one goes into the boards head first that should not be a penalty. The other, which is where I think most occur is when the puck carrier makes a quick turn. I have a problem in these two scenarios.

My other concern, because I watch my boys play so tentative now because they are afraid to get to close to other player, how are they going to compete with kids from areas of the country where the recent tragic events haven't taken place? Whether they do or not, my boys have dreams of playing college & even pro hockey. Of course I'm realistic enough to know that even as talented as they might be now, it's still a longshot. With that being said I'm concerned that they aren't going to develope those physical skills that are required to play jr & college hockey & beyond. I guess only time will tell.

Here is why I think the MN Hockey board has demonstrated yet another example of hypocrisy...This past summer when USA Hockey wanted to take checking out of peewees, Minnesota Hockey was the lone group who was adamantly opposed to it. I'm sure you can pull up any number of posts where that evidence exists. So to now read that this is being done for player safety, because that's what Mn Hockey is all about...excuse me if I am skeptical of this statement as away from deflecting the fact that this decision was based on emotion not facts. With that being said, I am happy that they have left the door open for discussion after the season.

Elliott, I am sorry if you take offense to this post regarding the MN Hockey Board. I have always appreciated your openness & willingness to listen to all of us without a voice on that board. For that I thank you. I hope you understand it's just how I see it.

[elliott70]

Elliott,

Were these rule changes ever discussed at Minnesota Hockey prior to Jack Jablonski????

yes, buy not recently

[elliott70]

First, while I don't necessarily agree with the decision, I do not think it is as detrimental for peewee & bantams as it is for high school players. Reason being the youth kids are playing 50-70 games vs. high school players who only have 25.
I agree with the earlier post who discussed the incidents in which check from behinds occur. I think if 2 kids are racing for the puck & the both deliver checks to each other & one goes into the boards head first that should not be a penalty. The other, which is where I think most occur is when the puck carrier makes a quick turn. I have a problem in these two scenarios.

My other concern, because I watch my boys play so tentative now because they are afraid to get to close to other player, how are they going to compete with kids from areas of the country where the recent tragic events haven't taken place? Whether they do or not, my boys have dreams of playing college & even pro hockey. Of course I'm realistic enough to know that even as talented as they might be now, it's still a longshot. With that being said I'm concerned that they aren't going to develope those physical skills that are required to play jr & college hockey & beyond. I guess only time will tell.

Here is why I think the MN Hockey board has demonstrated yet another example of hypocrisy...This past summer when USA Hockey wanted to take checking out of peewees, Minnesota Hockey was the lone group who was adamantly opposed to it. I'm sure you can pull up any number of posts where that evidence exists. So to now read that this is being done for player safety, because that's what Mn Hockey is all about...excuse me if I am skeptical of this statement as away from deflecting the fact that this decision was based on emotion not facts. With that being said, I am happy that they have left the door open for discussion after the season.

Elliott, I am sorry if you take offense to this post regarding the MN Hockey Board. I have always appreciated your openness & willingness to listen to all of us without a voice on that board. For that I thank you. I hope you understand it's just how I see it.

Not a problem, if we do not speak up how can we know what we feel, how do new ideas come forward, or old ideas revised.

[woodley]

I second Luv's last sentiment. . . Elliott, we won't always agree, but you are one of the few administrators in any organization that is willing to come forward and discuss topics, popular or not. Keep it up, it is appreciated!!

I am still truly interested. USA Hockey is the certifying agency for referees, and I believe the one who provides insurance for the referees. . . has USA hockey endorsed or approved this change?? If not, what issues and liabilities do our referees face enforcing a local rule? Who is providing the liability insurance for them to do this??

[elliott70]

I second Luv's last sentiment. . . Elliott, we won't always agree, but you are one of the few administrators in any organization that is willing to come forward and discuss topics, popular or not. Keep it up, it is appreciated!!

I am still truly interested. USA Hockey is the certifying agency for referees, and I believe the one who provides insurance for the referees. . . has USA hockey endorsed or approved this change?? If not, what issues and liabilities do our referees face enforcing a local rule? Who is providing the liability insurance for them to do this??

USAH allows for stricter enforcemnt of its rules by its affiliates (MH in this case).
One way to look at it is, it is not a rule change but just the time served.
I believe MH has stricter guidelines for other things such as fighting.

The insurance for refs will still be in force from USAH.
USAH is aware of this change.

[Cardiackid]

I am a little perplexed. Havent reffed in several years but if my memory serves me the rules for boarding, checking from behind and head contact have always allowed for either a 2 minute minor when it was appropriate or a double minor 4minutes or a 5 minute major when an intent to injure was evident. You are not reinventing the wheel. The ability to make the right call has always existed it just requires the courage and conviction to do so. When it is evident a check has been delivered in a malicious way give them a 5 and a game and send them packing how hard is that. Suddenly MAHA is a saint because it is responding to an unfortunate situation. The rules were there all along. I never have been able to understand why most are afraid to make those tough calls, I dont care if a player is 8 or 18 if they do something that could cause injury they should pay the price and every time we let it go as coaches or refs we are part of the problem.