New hand signal for ref's calling new penalties?

[almostashappy]

Saturday's Eagan-Edina game was the first time that I saw the new rule against checking an "unsuspecting" player called. Edina forward was at center ice, facing his own goal and looking for a pass from his defenseman. When the puck was passed, an Eagan defenseman (who was on the near side of the red line) made a bee-line for the forward, and delivered a hard shoulder-to-shoulder check a half-second after the forward received the puck. Forward got knocked down, defenseman got two minutes for "roughing."

It took a long time for the defenseman to calm down and for the call to be explained (at least to the player and his coach). I doubt that many in the stands knew what was going on, since "roughing" is typically a synonym for fisticuffs. But no punches were thrown, there was no head contact, and the sequence played out more like a charge than anything else. More than a few fans figured it was just one of those calls made when a 6'5" defenseman lays a spectacular lick that sends a smaller forward flying helmet over skates. It wasn't until after the game that I learned what the call was actually for.

One question and two observations:

1) Has anyone out there seen the new rule called?

2) There had already been a few hard checks that had been delivered to players who didn't seem to see the hit coming. The only difference seemed to be the fact that the checked players had already possessed the puck for a couple of seconds, and were moving up the ice with it. So I'm wondering if there is a clever nuance in the interpretation. The actual wording of the Rule 6-41-3 is, “No player shall deliver a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player.” But it's "and", not "or"...you have to be both unsuspecting and vulnerable. If a player is moving the puck up the ice, and has controlled the puck for a few strides, they could be vulnerable if their head is down, but they can hardly be unsuspecting (and assume that nobody will step up and check them away from unimpeded access to the goal). On the other hand, a player waiting to receive the pass doesn't have a lot of options to avoid (or mitigate) contact the split second after they receive the pass. I don't like the new rule change, but I guess I could live with this kind of limited enforcement.

3) They need to find a way to identify this new call. Either the PA announcer needs to elaborate (the same way that a NFL ref announces "Personal Foul...Hitting a Defenseless Player", or the refs need a new hand signal (instead of throwing a fake punch to indicate roughing). Maybe they could mimic wearing blinders by putting their open hands up to the sides of the face, as if they were narrowing their field of vision?

[puckbreath]

Are you 100% sure that the player wasn't actually called for roughing, and not the new rule ?

[bestpopcorn]

I love hard hits.

That said, I have seen a few that seemed extreme. One in particular sticks in my mind, a smaller lesser skilled player that found himself center ice with the puck as the majority of both lines changed. Poor kid, wrong place, wrong time. Ended his season. By all the rules a clean hit. In my eyes it was malicious.

The hit caused a stoppage of play. The bigger, faster, stronger hitter could very well have stripped the puck and scored. He chose to crush the kid instead.

I am glad I don't have to make the calls.

[almostashappy]

Are you 100% sure that the player wasn't actually called for roughing, and not the new rule ?

It's listed as "roughing" on the hub, and it was announced as roughing at the rink. Now, I didn't see a ref punching his fist out, but I may have missed it while I was watching the player's reaction, or turning to my buddy and asking him what he thought was going on. That said, the hit was shoulder to shoulder, with the penalized player's elbows in and both hands on his stick. The ref told the penalized player that it was the new rule about checking unsuspecting players. The kid told somebody as much after the game, and that person told me later that night. So, yeah...fourth-hand information...but it fits, and is the only thing that makes sense.

The NFHS press release on approved rules changes describes the infraction, identifies the penalty (Minor, if flagrant, major or Game DQ) but doesn't give the infraction a shortened name (or suggest a correlative hand signal). The ref might have been improvising.

For comparison, the new rule against trying to draw a penalty is identified as "embellishment." The hand signal for that ought to be the ref bringing his hands together and making a forward diving motion.

[StanleyCup55]

I love hard hits.

That said, I have seen a few that seemed extreme. One in particular sticks in my mind, a smaller lesser skilled player that found himself center ice with the puck as the majority of both lines changed. Poor kid, wrong place, wrong time. Ended his season. By all the rules a clean hit. In my eyes it was malicious.

The hit caused a stoppage of play. The bigger, faster, stronger hitter could very well have stripped the puck and scored. He chose to crush the kid instead.

I am glad I don't have to make the calls.

The thing that will never change is how a big hit will affect your team as well as the other team. If the bigger kid would've stripped the puck away, did he have a clear lane to the net for a breakaway? And even so, was there an empty net? Only saying because if the guy goes in and cleanly hits the kid and he goes flying everyone jumps up and cheers and it can ignite a fire under your teamates' butts and totally turn a game around or cause you to dominate for a while until you score, maybe multiple times in a short period of time. Just saying, big hits are legal and are game changers. I don't think you're saying you want hitting out of hockey but this should help you understand why a player would choose to check someone instead of trying to take the puck away from him. Other thing to consider is if the kid is smaller, he may be a scrappy player who's hard to steal the puck from and a big hit can knock him off of his game and make him scared to fly around the ice like he maybe was before the hit. People who sign up for sports should realize that there is a possibility that you may get hurt out there and everytime you put your kid on the ice he is in danger of being injured.

[nahc]

StanleyCup55: Could not agree with you more. High school hockey is a physical sport. Checking is part of what makes hockey a great sport to participate and watch. Would the same penalty have been called if the smaller player had checked the bigger skater? You all know the answer to that question. This is not girls hockey or Pee Wee hockey. Maybe that is what is needed, a seperate league for those players who may be at a disadvantage by playing against larger skaters. We are heading in the WRONG direction with the physical play in the game. Of course take out the boarding, charging, etc from the game. Start teaching checking at Squirts. Get all skaters ready at an early age for what is part of the game. Obviously safety is a huge concern for everyone but good gosh, one can catch an edge, fall into the boards and get hurt just as easily........just one opinion

[Tenoverpar]

We have suffered from several early season "Charging" calls for basically the same type of hit. The play seems like a clean, hard check but the refs have called it in 3 different games against our D making hits in the neutral zone. These hits a couple years ago are highlight reel checks instead of minors. They hurt when you get one with 30 seconds left in a tie game.

[WarmUpTheBus]

Saturday's Eagan-Edina game was the first time that I saw the new rule against checking an "unsuspecting" player called. Edina forward was at center ice, facing his own goal and looking for a pass from his defenseman. When the puck was passed, an Eagan defenseman (who was on the near side of the red line) made a bee-line for the forward, and delivered a hard shoulder-to-shoulder check a half-second after the forward received the puck. Forward got knocked down, defenseman got two minutes for "roughing."

It took a long time for the defenseman to calm down and for the call to be explained (at least to the player and his coach). I doubt that many in the stands knew what was going on, since "roughing" is typically a synonym for fisticuffs. But no punches were thrown, there was no head contact, and the sequence played out more like a charge than anything else. More than a few fans figured it was just one of those calls made when a 6'5" defenseman lays a spectacular lick that sends a smaller forward flying helmet over skates. It wasn't until after the game that I learned what the call was actually for.

One question and two observations:

1) Has anyone out there seen the new rule called?

2) There had already been a few hard checks that had been delivered to players who didn't seem to see the hit coming. The only difference seemed to be the fact that the checked players had already possessed the puck for a couple of seconds, and were moving up the ice with it. So I'm wondering if there is a clever nuance in the interpretation. The actual wording of the Rule 6-41-3 is, “No player shall deliver a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player.” But it's "and", not "or"...you have to be both unsuspecting and vulnerable. If a player is moving the puck up the ice, and has controlled the puck for a few strides, they could be vulnerable if their head is down, but they can hardly be unsuspecting (and assume that nobody will step up and check them away from unimpeded access to the goal). On the other hand, a player waiting to receive the pass doesn't have a lot of options to avoid (or mitigate) contact the split second after they receive the pass. I don't like the new rule change, but I guess I could live with this kind of limited enforcement.

3) They need to find a way to identify this new call. Either the PA announcer needs to elaborate (the same way that a NFL ref announces "Personal Foul...Hitting a Defenseless Player", or the refs need a new hand signal (instead of throwing a fake punch to indicate roughing). Maybe they could mimic wearing blinders by putting their open hands up to the sides of the face, as if they were narrowing their field of vision?

Are you sure you weren't at a girls game?

[almostashappy]

Are you sure you weren't at a girls game?

Well, one of the Hornets was whining like a girl to the refs at the end of the 2nd period, but other than that....

( trying to lay low not channeling scorekeeper keeping cool managing expectations )

[puckbreath]

I'd rather see a zillion penalties vs. another Jablonski incident.

I remember cringing when my kid got hurt for the usual stuff.

I can't imagine what it would have been like per his injury.

There isn't a team or game worth it.

[Slammer]

I'd rather see a zillion penalties vs. another Jablonski incident.

I remember cringing when my kid got hurt for the usual stuff.

I can't imagine what it would have been like per his injury.

There isn't a team or game worth it.

I have to respectfully disagree... The players know what they are getting into when they play. They're going to war. The Jablonski thing was a rare freak accident and it shouldn't be used as an example for more penalties in my opinion.

[puckbreath]

I'd rather see a zillion penalties vs. another Jablonski incident.

I remember cringing when my kid got hurt for the usual stuff.

I can't imagine what it would have been like per his injury.

There isn't a team or game worth it.

I have to respectfully disagree... The players know what they are getting into when they play. They're going to war. The Jablonski thing was a rare freak accident and it shouldn't be used as an example for more penalties in my opinion.

Going to war ? Wow................

It's a game. In this case, a kids game.

[green4]

I'd rather see a zillion penalties vs. another Jablonski incident.

I remember cringing when my kid got hurt for the usual stuff.

I can't imagine what it would have been like per his injury.

There isn't a team or game worth it.

I have to respectfully disagree... The players know what they are getting into when they play. They're going to war. The Jablonski thing was a rare freak accident and it shouldn't be used as an example for more penalties in my opinion.

Going to war ? Wow................

It's a game. In this case, a kids game.

Maybe that reference is a little dramatic but he is right. The kids know this is a very physical sport and that there is a chance they could get hurt. That does not keep them away from the sport and I think if you ask the players they would agree with Slammer. Nobody wants to watch a stop and start game with non stop power plays. Though it might be entertaining with a lot of scoring thats not how the game is meant to be played. My Point I guess is that I agree with Slammer and that I would rather see the game without a ton of penalties than have the chance at another Jabs Incident because in reality that could happen with or without these new rules. It could happen when a stick gets tangled up with someone on an attempted poke check where the player land awkwardly in the boards. You just cant stop freak accident so don't change the rules to think you can stop them.

[puckbreath]

I have to respectfully disagree... The players know what they are getting into when they play. They're going to war. The Jablonski thing was a rare freak accident and it shouldn't be used as an example for more penalties in my opinion.

Going to war ? Wow................

It's a game. In this case, a kids game.

Maybe that reference is a little dramatic but he is right. The kids know this is a very physical sport and that there is a chance they could get hurt. That does not keep them away from the sport and I think if you ask the players they would agree with Slammer. Nobody wants to watch a stop and start game with non stop power plays. Though it might be entertaining with a lot of scoring thats not how the game is meant to be played. My Point I guess is that I agree with Slammer and that I would rather see the game without a ton of penalties than have the chance at another Jabs Incident because in reality that could happen with or without these new rules. It could happen when a stick gets tangled up with someone on an attempted poke check where the player land awkwardly in the boards. You just cant stop freak accident so don't change the rules to think you can stop them.

Stopping them isn't the point. As you said, you can't, at least via your examples.

Minimizing them is the point.

Kids think they're invincible anyway, so of course they don't shy away from the sport.

It's early with these new rules. Like most new rules, they'll require tweaking.

But I'll take a "boring" hockey game over a hurt kid any day.

Easy to say when it's not your kid/if one doesn't have kids.

[green4]

But you can't mi
Going to war ? Wow................

It's a game. In this case, a kids game.

Maybe that reference is a little dramatic but he is right. The kids know this is a very physical sport and that there is a chance they could get hurt. That does not keep them away from the sport and I think if you ask the players they would agree with Slammer. Nobody wants to watch a stop and start game with non stop power plays. Though it might be entertaining with a lot of scoring thats not how the game is meant to be played. My Point I guess is that I agree with Slammer and that I would rather see the game without a ton of penalties than have the chance at another Jabs Incident because in reality that could happen with or without these new rules. It could happen when a stick gets tangled up with someone on an attempted poke check where the player land awkwardly in the boards. You just cant stop freak accident so don't change the rules to think you can stop them.

Stopping them isn't the point. As you said, you can't, at least via your examples.

Minimizing them is the point.

Kids think they're invincible anyway, so of course they don't shy away from the sport.

It's early with these new rules. Like most new rules, they'll require tweaking.

But I'll take a "boring" hockey game over a hurt kid any day.

Easy to say when it's not your kid/if one doesn't have kids.

But you can't minimize a "freak accident". You can't minimize something that happens once every 5 years, because it will find a way to happen again in a different scenario. Maybe a player trips over himself and lands awkwardly. Maybe it happens to a goalie when a pile lands on him. The hit on jabs was not terribly dirty like the one where you see a guy fly head first into the bottom of the boards but he was hit up against the boards where his back became straight up and down and was then hit by another player so should we eliminate hits on the boards? or eliminate pinning a player on the boards? No because regardless of what you try to get rid of it will happen in another freak kind of way. Maybe this is a pessimistic way of looking at it but thats the way I see it. And I agree when you have a kid in the game its much different but that is something you have to look at and maybe talk to them about. Just like what is happening to football and how not as many kids are signing up for it now with all these concussion issues, figure out if the sport maybe is too big of a risk. Because regardless if they take hits like this out of the game theres always that chance of injury.

[puckbreath]

Maybe that reference is a little dramatic but he is right. The kids know this is a very physical sport and that there is a chance they could get hurt. That does not keep them away from the sport and I think if you ask the players they would agree with Slammer. Nobody wants to watch a stop and start game with non stop power plays. Though it might be entertaining with a lot of scoring thats not how the game is meant to be played. My Point I guess is that I agree with Slammer and that I would rather see the game without a ton of penalties than have the chance at another Jabs Incident because in reality that could happen with or without these new rules. It could happen when a stick gets tangled up with someone on an attempted poke check where the player land awkwardly in the boards. You just cant stop freak accident so don't change the rules to think you can stop them.

Stopping them isn't the point. As you said, you can't, at least via your examples.

Minimizing them is the point.

Kids think they're invincible anyway, so of course they don't shy away from the sport.

It's early with these new rules. Like most new rules, they'll require tweaking.

But I'll take a "boring" hockey game over a hurt kid any day.

Easy to say when it's not your kid/if one doesn't have kids.

But you can't minimize a "freak accident". You can't minimize something that happens once every 5 years, because it will find a way to happen again in a different scenario. Maybe a player trips over himself and lands awkwardly. Maybe it happens to a goalie when a pile lands on him. The hit on jabs was not terribly dirty like the one where you see a guy fly head first into the bottom of the boards but he was hit up against the boards where his back became straight up and down and was then hit by another player so should we eliminate hits on the boards? or eliminate pinning a player on the boards? No because regardless of what you try to get rid of it will happen in another freak kind of way. Maybe this is a pessimistic way of looking at it but thats the way I see it. And I agree when you have a kid in the game its much different but that is something you have to look at and maybe talk to them about. Just like what is happening to football and how not as many kids are signing up for it now with all these concussion issues, figure out if the sport maybe is too big of a risk. Because regardless if they take hits like this out of the game theres always that chance of injury.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[andovercw]

Lets just all call it how it is. It is the start of taking hard hits out of hockey and eventually checking all together. We all know its coming. The wussification has been going on for many years and is only going to get worst.

[inthestands]

The new rule is referenced as "targeting" a defenseless player. As with all calls, they are up the officials discretion.

That, along with the embelishment rule are a couple of changes that all coaches, players and officials have been made aware of prior to the season starting.

Minor changes to check from behind, boarding and head contact are a few others. Most of them came into play late last season.

As for explaining these to the crowd.. Why waste the time on something that has no value.

[bestpopcorn]

I love hard hits.

That said, I have seen a few that seemed extreme. One in particular sticks in my mind, a smaller lesser skilled player that found himself center ice with the puck as the majority of both lines changed. Poor kid, wrong place, wrong time. Ended his season. By all the rules a clean hit. In my eyes it was malicious.

The hit caused a stoppage of play. The bigger, faster, stronger hitter could very well have stripped the puck and scored. He chose to crush the kid instead.

I am glad I don't have to make the calls.

The thing that will never change is how a big hit will affect your team as well as the other team. If the bigger kid would've stripped the puck away, did he have a clear lane to the net for a breakaway? And even so, was there an empty net? Only saying because if the guy goes in and cleanly hits the kid and he goes flying everyone jumps up and cheers and it can ignite a fire under your teamates' butts and totally turn a game around or cause you to dominate for a while until you score, maybe multiple times in a short period of time. Just saying, big hits are legal and are game changers. I don't think you're saying you want hitting out of hockey but this should help you understand why a player would choose to check someone instead of trying to take the puck away from him. Other thing to consider is if the kid is smaller, he may be a scrappy player who's hard to steal the puck from and a big hit can knock him off of his game and make him scared to fly around the ice like he maybe was before the hit. People who sign up for sports should realize that there is a possibility that you may get hurt out there and everytime you put your kid on the ice he is in danger of being injured.

Again, I love big hits. Both guys head up, etc.

I remind my son that players are people too. Play the game. Don't head hunt. Nothing wrong with tempering your hit if you can see the guy is in a vulnerable position. It is a game.

[almostashappy]

As for explaining these to the crowd.. Why waste the time on something that has no value.

What are you saying lacks any value...the new rules, or letting the fans know what is going on?

[inthestands]

As for explaining these to the crowd.. Why waste the time on something that has no value.

What are you saying lacks any value...the new rules, or letting the fans know what is going on?

Letting the crowd know what's happening with penalties.

The one's that care enough usually already have an idea what's being called, even if they don't agree.

Most of what I've seen over the years from a spectator standpoint would have little value, be hard to understand over most arena PA systems, and would be argued anyway.. JMHO..

[almostashappy]

Letting the crowd know what's happening with penalties.

The one's that care enough usually already have an idea what's being called, even if they don't agree.

Most of what I've seen over the years from a spectator standpoint would have little value, be hard to understand over most arena PA systems, and would be argued anyway.. JMHO..

Wow. Why bother with the hand signals, then?

Suppose you also aren't a fan of NFL refs turning on their belt-mounted microphones to explain thrown flags, then?

[inthestands]

Letting the crowd know what's happening with penalties.

The one's that care enough usually already have an idea what's being called, even if they don't agree.

Most of what I've seen over the years from a spectator standpoint would have little value, be hard to understand over most arena PA systems, and would be argued anyway.. JMHO..

Wow. Why bother with the hand signals, then?

Suppose you also aren't a fan of NFL refs turning on their belt-mounted microphones to explain thrown flags, then?

Not at all. My point is the general hockey fan is mostly uninformed when it comes to penalties and game calling.

They don't agree with most of the calls made against their team, and wonder why more isn't called against the opposing team.

The referee hand signal is for the minor official so they know what to put on the score sheet. That's the reason the official is suppose to be facing them. The fan identifying a penalty from that is just a bonus.

As for the NFL and NHL refs using mic's, I enjoy that a lot.

Arena PA systems, not so much. I've always struggled to understand anything the announcers are saying.. May be more related to my hearing, but have gotten similar feedback from many others.

[StanleyCup55]

What if we took the face masks off and even wore less padding? Athletes wear a ton of protection nowadays and there are more injuries than ever. Taking checking out of Pee Wees doesn't help the situation either, unless you're going to get rid of checking at all levels. Kids learning to deliver and take hits at age 14 and 15 instead of 12 or 13... I just think that was a step in the wrong direction to prevent injuries and a step in the right direction towards putting more kids at risk of being severly injured. Or maybe it's the start of abolishing hits for good. In 100 years, the only sport that will exist is golf, but that will probably be considered too dangerous too because you could get hit by a golf ball and die. People just need to man up. If it's too physical for you or your kids, do something else... play basketball. There are plenty of alternatives. The thing I can't understand is why people always feel we should accomidate their needs? If you don't like something the way it is and you don't call the shots, then do something else.

[inthestands]

What if we took the face masks off and even wore less padding? Athletes wear a ton of protection nowadays and there are more injuries than ever. Taking checking out of Pee Wees doesn't help the situation either, unless you're going to get rid of checking at all levels. Kids learning to deliver and take hits at age 14 and 15 instead of 12 or 13... I just think that was a step in the wrong direction to prevent injuries and a step in the right direction towards putting more kids at risk of being severly injured. Or maybe it's the start of abolishing hits for good. In 100 years, the only sport that will exist is golf, but that will probably be considered too dangerous too because you could get hit by a golf ball and die. People just need to man up. If it's too physical for you or your kids, do something else... play basketball. There are plenty of alternatives. The thing I can't understand is why people always feel we should accomidate their needs? If you don't like something the way it is and you don't call the shots, then do something else.

You ask some very good questions.

All sports today are at a much higher speed than 20 years ago. The protection has improved drastically and gives the participants much more confidence.

When hockey players didn't have total face protection, most players had respect for their counterparts as well as themselves. Overall pucks and hits were lower. As the protection increased, so did the aggression.

I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past. That's just one area of major change. Boxing, Football, Hockey and on and on.. Take a look at professional soccer.. The concussion outlook for that sport is much different than the more "protected" sports we are used to seeing.