Rule Changes?

[MNHockeyFan]

This was just posted on the MSHSL website, so I assume they are new changes, but maybe not...anyone know for sure?

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF STATE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
NEWS RELEASE

High School Ice Hockey Rules Changes Focus on Eliminating Dangerous Hits

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Dan Schuster

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (November 6, 2013) — In continuing efforts to minimize the risk of injury in the sport, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Ice Hockey Rules Committee approved changes that will strengthen the language for dangerous hits as well as give game officials discretion for issuing a game disqualification when a player illegally hits another player from behind.

Rule 6-7-2 states, “No player shall push, charge, cross-check or body-check an opponent from behind into the boards or goal frame,” and a violation would result in a major and misconduct penalty or — if flagrant — game disqualification.

The checking-from-behind change was one of four major rules revisions approved by the committee at its April 22-23 meeting in Indianapolis. The changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

“Checking from behind is the most dangerous act in the sport,” said Dan Schuster, NFHS assistant director of coach education and staff liaison to the Ice Hockey Rules Committee. “With all of its rules changes, the goal of the committee is to minimize the risk of injury.”

In another risk-minimization change, Rule 6-41-3 now states, “No player shall deliver a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player.” This addition was implemented to eliminate blind-side hits from the sport as well as to stress legal body-checking.

“This helps protect the defenseless player,” Schuster said. “The committee is striving to take these dangerous and unnecessary hits out of the game.”

The final rules change dealing with risk minimization is Rule 3-3-5. The rule now includes a goalkeeper’s glove as being a piece of equipment that, if it becomes displaced, requires play to be immediately stopped.
In the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play, the committee elected to institute Rule 6-42-1 and 2, which prohibits the embellishment of acts in an attempt to draw a penalty through any exaggerated or deceitful actions or to attempt to worsen an already called penalty. The infraction for both is a minor penalty call.

“Some kids are putting themselves in position where it looks like they get checked from behind, when in fact, they are merely attempting to draw a major penalty,” Schuster said. “The committee wants to eliminate these acts from the game.”

According to the NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, ice hockey is the 15th-most popular boys sport at the high school level with 35,732 participants in 1,612 schools. An additional 8,833 girls participated in the sport at 600 schools.

[Simpleton]

“No player shall deliver a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player.” This addition was implemented to eliminate blind-side hits from the sport as well as to stress legal body-checking.

“This helps protect the defenseless player,” Schuster said. “The committee is striving to take these dangerous and unnecessary hits out of the game.”

While I'm good with all the other items - and pieces were already addressed last season in MN - the term 'unsuspecting' is a little worrisome. It doesn't specifically say 'from behind', so...can you now put the puck on your stick and skate around with your head down without fear of getting hit in the open ice? Seems like it could be interpreted that way.

[MNHockeyFan]

....so...can you now put the puck on your stick and skate around with your head down without fear of getting hit in the open ice? Seems like it could be interpreted that way.

That one caught my eye as well. It could lead to a lot of penalties being called on good, hard checks if, in the opinion of the referee, the player getting hit did not have his head up and see it coming. And what about situations where two players unintentionally collide and they both go down. Do they each get a penalty?

[almostashappy]

....so...can you now put the puck on your stick and skate around with your head down without fear of getting hit in the open ice? Seems like it could be interpreted that way.

That one caught my eye as well. It could lead to a lot of penalties being called on good, hard checks if, in the opinion of the referee, the player getting hit did not have his head up and see it coming. And what about situations where two players unintentionally collide and they both go down. Do they each get a penalty?

Similar rule changes have been announced for boys high school lacrosse, and have been a topic of discussion on a comparable discussion forum. The new lacrosse rules are much more specific...one of the examples given for a illegal hit on a "defenseless" player is when a player is trying to scoop up a loose ball and has his eyes focused down on the ground. Somebody sarcastically asked whether these changes were going to be applied across different contact sports, and whether it would now be illegal for a hockey player to be checked if he was skating with the puck and had his head down, watching the puck. Sad to see the truth behind that question.

Hope was expressed that these announced rule changes were just some preemptive legal butt-covering from the national associations...the equivalent of ladder-making companies plastering their products with warning stickers to ward-off lawsuits. It will be interesting to see if local refs treat it as such, or whether we're now inexorably drifting towards no-check hockey.

[Stripes2011]

Its the Officials job to Call the Rules by the book. They do not write the rules, they just inforce whats been written. Part of the philosphy behind some of the new rules is to take the 2nd guessing out of it. it either "is" or it "is not" if the person receiving the check was in a "vulnerable" position a penalty should be called.
Weather is right or wrong, its in the hands of the officials to determine what they feel is "Vulnerable"

[almostashappy]

Its the Officials job to Call the Rules by the book. They do not write the rules, they just inforce whats been written. Part of the philosphy behind some of the new rules is to take the 2nd guessing out of it. it either "is" or it "is not" if the person receiving the check was in a "vulnerable" position a penalty should be called.
Weather is right or wrong, its in the hands of the officials to determine what they feel is "Vulnerable"

I agree that it's in the hands of the officials to determine what they feel is "vulnerable," and I'm glad that the ice hockey rule changes weren't as specific as they were in other sports. It's left me cautiously optimistic that what had been a legal check last year will (for the most part) continue to be legal.

Hockey players, coaches, and fans might not always appreciate how much they benefit from the fact that 99.99x % of high school hockey officials actually played the game in their younger days. That personal experience is invaluable when it comes to making these kind of "determinations." Not saying that you can't be a good referee if you didn't play the sport yourself, but it's a heck of a lot more difficult.

[MNHockeyFan]

Part of the philosphy behind some of the new rules is to take the 2nd guessing out of it....Weather is right or wrong, its in the hands of the officials to determine what they feel is "Vulnerable"

Seems to me they just made the officials' job more difficult! For example, if one player just "bumps" another player who is "vulnerable" - or checks him pretty lightly - I doubt the ref will call a penalty. But anything beyond that -- a medium-to-hard-to-crushing check -- and the ref may or may not call it, depending on how vulnerable he believes the checked player leaves himself in and how "dangerous" he believes the hit is. Seems to me the rule leaves a lot more to interpretation than previously, when a legal check was a legal check, no matter how hard it was...they always appear harder when the checked player wasn't expecting it!

[Stripes2011]

One other note i should add: the officials are to monitor the "Force" used to deliver the check. The purpose of the "check" is to seperate the opponent from the puck. Checking is still ok as long as its legal. Tough part is a legal body check is "Only" the Trunk (hips & shoulders) of the body shall be used to deliver a body check. How many times is the Check actually given using the Arms? the rule hasen't changed as in the way its written, it just now is being emphasized to be enforced.

look at a typical 1 on 1 situation: any open ice hit (unless its the good old fashion hip check) has the potential of being illegal. pretty hard to lay only your shoulder into the body with out bringing your arms up. its will take some getting used to, but in the mean time the potential for more penalties to be called is there.

[EliteHockeyMind]

Sounds a lot like the NFL's extremely grey "Hit on a defenseless receiver." I feel it will mostly be called when some defender throws a forward a suicide pass breaking out.

It is just going to be another penalty option the refs will have instead of calling interference, charging, boarding, check from behind, roughing..etc.

[Nuts&Bolts]

Great. Teach a kid to skate with his head down and a goalie to drop his glove when a scoring chance for the other team looms. Maybe the glove trick will reduce the number of times a goalie takes the net off or uses the shoulder to nudge the helmet off to stop play. Maybe the whistle should blow for any player that loses a glove or anytime a stick is dropped since a player is then more likely to check someone with there arms. And we wonder why many players elect to leave the 25 game high school season for juniors or AAA?? While the brain trust is at it maybe add the orange stop signs to the HS jerseys. Can't wait to watch the inconsistency in the refereeing this year but at least the 2013-14 season is near.

[almostashappy]

Sounds a lot like the NFL's extremely grey "Hit on a defenseless receiver." I feel it will mostly be called when some defender throws a forward a suicide pass breaking out.

No, it's worse than that.

In the NFL, it's still legal for a defensive end to sack a quarterback with a hit from the QB's "blind side," even if the QB is looking down the field towards a receiver. The new rule changes potentially (and radically) expand the definition of a "vulnerable" or "defenseless" player from someone who can't protect themselves from a hit, to anyone who can't see a hit coming.

Let's say that it's a PP situation, and an offensive player has set up in front of the net, trying to screen the goalie's view of the puck. If that forward is watching that puck move around the umbrella, or is looking down to see if his skates are tied, does that make him "vulnerable," and safe from being hit by a defenseman who wants him out of way? Common sense says no, but if the rules are written that way....?

[C-dad]

Sounds a lot like the NFL's extremely grey "Hit on a defenseless receiver." I feel it will mostly be called when some defender throws a forward a suicide pass breaking out.

No, it's worse than that.

In the NFL, it's still legal for a defensive end to sack a quarterback with a hit from the QB's "blind side," even if the QB is looking down the field towards a receiver. The new rule changes potentially (and radically) expand the definition of a "vulnerable" or "defenseless" player from someone who can't protect themselves from a hit, to anyone who can't see a hit coming.

Let's say that it's a PP situation, and an offensive player has set up in front of the net, trying to screen the goalie's view of the puck. If that forward is watching that puck move around the umbrella, or is looking down to see if his skates are tied, does that make him "vulnerable," and safe from being hit by a defenseman who wants him out of way? Common sense says no, but if the rules are written that way....?

If he's looking at the puck, he doesn't have it, therefore a hit is interference.

[Stripes2011]

If he's looking at the puck, he doesn't have it, therefore a hit is interference.


Interference. Good Call!

[almostashappy]

If he's looking at the puck, he doesn't have it, therefore a hit is interference.

And that call is always made, right?

Gets back to my comment about discretion and refs who've played the game.

[Stripes2011]

Im not saying its always made. I am saying its an Interference call per the way its written in the rule book. How the official on the ice at the time decides to call it is his choice. I'm just trying to give the try definition of the Rule Book. Or maybe better said: The official would not be "Wrong" making that type of Call, however word for word from the rule book he would be in Error if he did not make that call.

[Bluewhitefan]

and a goalie to drop his glove when a scoring chance for the other team looms. Maybe the glove trick will reduce the number of times a goalie takes the net off or uses the shoulder to nudge the helmet off to stop play. Maybe the whistle should blow for any player that loses a glove or anytime a stick is dropped since a player is then more likely to check someone with there arms.

I guess you've never seen a goalie get his/her hand cut by a skate after they've accidentially dropped their glove. They're in a vulnerable posittion already. There is some room in the game for smart safety related rules - this isn't necessarily a bad one.

[skiumah]

Rule 6-41-3 now states, “No player shall deliver a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player.”

Here's one possible example...
Players A1 & B1 are against the boards, puck in their skates; neither player has clear possession. Player A2 is standing next to A1 & B1. A2 is not engaged with A1 & B2, but he's near the puck (but without possession). Along comes B2 and smokes A2.

The way I read Rule 6-41-3, player A2 is unsuspecting and, more importantly, vulnerable. They should remove the word "unsuspecting", IMO.

[Nuts&Bolts]

BW, no I've never seen a goalie get his hand cut and they may be in a vulnerable position but if it's a safety issue the whistle should be blown anytime a player drops a glove don't you think? A stick on the ice also presents danger for a skater or official so let's stop play in the name of safety. My point is some rules are be going to far. A disincentive to minimize real or artificial ploys to stop play would be to award the opposing team a 45 second power play if a glove or stick is on the ice or the goalie takes off the net regardless of intent. Keeps everyone safe, discourages a type of embellishment and brings in more scoring opportunities.

[MNHockeyFan]

Here's one possible example...
Players A1 & B1 are against the boards, puck in their skates; neither player has clear possession. Player A2 is standing next to A1 & B1. A2 is not engaged with A1 & B2, but he's near the puck (but without possession). Along comes B2 and smokes A2.

Player B2 should, at a minimum, get a 2 minute interference penalty because A2 was not in possession of the puck.

[MNHockeyFan]

A disincentive to minimize real or artificial ploys to stop play would be to award the opposing team a 45 second power play if a glove or stick is on the ice or the goalie takes off the net regardless of intent.

Assuming one of the refs does not see the goalie lose his glove intentionally, they could give him one freebie but if it happens again it would result in a 2 minute delay of game penalty. Just another approach (possible rule change) they could consider if we start to see goalies losing their gloves be a common occurrence.

[Nuts&Bolts]

And how often is a delay of game penalty called on a goalie or d-zone player strategically nudging the net off to stop play? It's an event that virtually NEVER gets called even after a warning. I guess it's the by-product of another safety issue in using the same pegs that are used on the nets at the squirt level.

[the_juiceman]

BW, no I've never seen a goalie get his hand cut and they may be in a vulnerable position but if it's a safety issue the whistle should be blown anytime a player drops a glove don't you think? A stick on the ice also presents danger for a skater or official so let's stop play in the name of safety. My point is some rules are be going to far. A disincentive to minimize real or artificial ploys to stop play would be to award the opposing team a 45 second power play if a glove or stick is on the ice or the goalie takes off the net regardless of intent. Keeps everyone safe, discourages a type of embellishment and brings in more scoring opportunities.

you're comparing a goalie losing a glove to a skater losing a glove? wow.... sounds like you're complaining just to complaining. Keep stirring the pot

[skiumah]

Here's one possible example...
Players A1 & B1 are against the boards, puck in their skates; neither player has clear possession. Player A2 is standing next to A1 & B1. A2 is not engaged with A1 & B2, but he's near the puck (but without possession). Along comes B2 and smokes A2.

Player B2 should, at a minimum, get a 2 minute interference penalty because A2 was not in possession of the puck.

Completely agree with you calling it interference. I'm trying to think of other examples of an unsuspecting and vulnerable situation.

A neutral ice pass from D to F...forward has his head turned looking for the pass...opponent steps up, times his check perfectly, and separates the forward from the puck. Text book check, not a violent hit, but one that knocks the player to the ice.

Seems like the forward is both vulnerable and unsuspecting, in that situation. Make that call and the coach complains that it was a legal body check. After all, it was the D put his own forward in a vulnerable position. Don't make that call, and the other coach complains that his player was both vulnerable and unsuspecting. Which is a true statement. Yikes...

[the_juiceman]

Here's one possible example...
Players A1 & B1 are against the boards, puck in their skates; neither player has clear possession. Player A2 is standing next to A1 & B1. A2 is not engaged with A1 & B2, but he's near the puck (but without possession). Along comes B2 and smokes A2.

Player B2 should, at a minimum, get a 2 minute interference penalty because A2 was not in possession of the puck.

Completely agree with you calling it interference. I'm trying to think of other examples of an unsuspecting and vulnerable situation.

A neutral ice pass from D to F...forward has his head turned looking for the pass...opponent steps up, times his check perfectly, and separates the forward from the puck. Text book check, not a violent hit, but one that knocks the player to the ice.

Seems like the forward is both vulnerable and unsuspecting, in that situation. Make that call and the coach complains that it was a legal body check. After all, it was the D put his own forward in a vulnerable position. Don't make that call, and the other coach complains that his player was both vulnerable and unsuspecting. Which is a true statement. Yikes...

shouldn't you always be expecting a hit went you have possession of the puck, or about to be in possession on the puck?

[Nuts&Bolts]

Sorry Juice but after all this "bored" does involve some pot stirring. I gotta believe with the equipment today that the fitting of a goalies catching glove and external strap should keep the glove in place if the player wants it to stay in place. As for unsuspecting hits let's go back to the pre-1960s when checking was only legal in the defensive zone.