Blowouts

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:39 am

This is something that has forced me to post. I'm greatly disturbed to see the score differential in some games as of late approaching 15/20+ goals again, and for people to be commenting that this is appropriate... We have created a threshold that is entirely unethical and unnecessary. This isn't the fault of any one program or coach, but instead is a reflection on the hockey community and also society in general. While I know that this topic is a very hot one, I just want to comment on my personal perspective. ===================================================== Here's the bottom line: 6 goal differential is the mercy rule (running time). There is no need to go beyond this with top players unless a coach sincerely believe they need to to secure a victory by game's end. Teams that do go beyond this with top players for any other reason are using many excuses for doing so, and I don't think that any of these excuses are valid. This may be a top topic for consideration by the Coaches Assn. Ethics Committee. We have the capability of changing this precedent & trend, but it will take effort on behalf of the coaches to do so. #1 - It's not acceptable to play 1st line players with the intent of scoring/assisting at any time after a 6 goal differential. If you don't have enough players to play 3rd/4th lines only once 6 goal differential is achieved, then play 1st/2nd line with instructions re: the situation. As you approach a 6 goal differential, passing rules (# of passes)/moving F to D & vice-versa/specific system work (PP/N-zone Regroup/etc.), and playing 3rd/4th lines is best. If a 3rd/4th line player scores a goal (with or w/out passing/system rules in place?) that pushes the differential to 6+ , that's acceptable, but not to a goal or two more (7-8 tops???). You may need to give instructions to 3rd &/or 4th line players if the goal differential gets too high due to them scoring. 1st & 2nd line players shouldn't be in the boxscore once the score reaches 6 goal differential. If somehow the lowly team gets back to 5 or less differential, then it's acceptable to maintain the lead and play top players to score if a coach TRULY feels his HUGE 5+ goal lead is in jeopardy against a weak team, but once that differential hits 6 again, get line 1 & 2 off the ice... Each coach has to assess their own team and at what point they ETHICALLY must put restrictions on lines 1, 2, and even potentially 3 & 4. ALSO - COACHES NEED TO THINK ABOUT IF THEY REALLY NEED THEIR TOP PLAYERS PLAYING AT THE END OF A BLOWOUT... WHAT IF THEY GET HURT??? THAT'S JUST POOR COACHING, AND IT CAN HAPPEN AS SOMETIMES IT GETS CHEAP AT THE END OF GAMES THAT AREN'T WELL CONTROLLED BLOWOUT WISE BY THE COACHES... #2 - It's not acceptable to use "common scores" as an excuse. Saying that team A beat team B by "x" goals is not a reason for you to duplicate (or worse yet - push to duplicate) that score. We are not in a pool play tourney that forces us to have to rack up goal differential for potential tie-breaking seeding purposes. This excuse is not valid. Those that really know what's going on look at how soon a coach can get deep into their bench (blowout control) as an indicator of how good their team is, not at if they can score 15+, etc. #3 - It's not acceptable to claim coaches are unable to control the score in a blowout as they are (read all of this post...). We have a great group of coaches that are fully capable of this. The talent disparity isn't what it once was in G HS Hockey, and so this must be much easier to control appropriately in 2005 that it was in 1995. For this reason, differentials that were more acceptable years ago (in game's infancy) under different circumstances shouldn't be used as rationale for today's scores. Lack of blowout control shows a lack of coaching capability, but I don't blame any specific coaches for the thresholds that have been deemed "acceptable" which truly aren't. We also need to put in perspective that even some of the 10-15+ goal differential blowouts had a degree of "control" being done as otherwise they could have been much worse. What we need to do is start to "control" sooner (even try to not play these games if known ahead of time???) and to result in a better end result goal-differential wise (6 vs. 10-15+). #4 - It's not acceptable to play for statistical achievements if they mean having to deviate from the 6-goal differential rule. If you're pushing for most goals scored, most goal differential, most goals by single player in a game/period/shift, etc. - not good nor is this acceptable. To play for D/G records (trying to maintain least goals allowed, etc.) is fine. There are ways to do this without meaning that you need to run the score up at the other end of the rink. #5 - It's not acceptable to say that strong teams have to run up the score as they are at the mercy of their schedule. Meaning, if a conference is forcing a team to play a weak team, the stronger team can still adjust. Many times this is an opportunity for the stronger team's JV players to dress (up to 20 total can) as usually the weaker team won't have a JV, and even if they do you can usually get by with less players at JV for less periods to enable more to dress for V contests against weak teams. All teams should start playing best players as if it were any game, but once the 6-goal differential gets close, adjustments (read above - especially #1 & #8 below) need to be made. Similarly, coaches and administrators need to work towards evaluating the team's schedule heading into the next season and adjust accordingly (I've already started to do this for my team for next year). Conferences need to make provisions to allow weaker teams to opt out of games against stronger teams as needed. Many examples of this have been done as of late. It is the responsibility of all coaches and administrators to have their "finger on the pulse" of their program and to know what will best suit their team (by all reasonable predictions) for the coming season SOS (Strength-of-Schedule) wise. It's far more ethical to ask a conference or non-conference opponent's coach/admin. to allow you out of obligation to play them due to poor compatibility team strength wise, than to just go with the flow and pound them. This does no good for either team no matter how hard headed the other team's personnel may be insisting on the value in a blowout game. It's not good for anyone involved. Next time someone claims the value of a blowout game, ask them what it is! The KRACH rankings have been used by teams to set up schedules for the coming season for SOS appropriate opponents, and this is a good method to use. #6 - It's not acceptable to condone a blowout due to the request of the opposing coach asking for one and for you not to "let up." Think about the ethics of this and what is the lesson for either team's kids. This is about teaching life lessons, and mercy is a good one if we intend to teach our kids morals, ethics, and values (and this is the point of athletics as much as anything). This is NOT the NHL. IT'S FULL ACCEPTABLE FOR A COACH TO DENY AN OPPOSING COACHES' REQUEST TO RUN UP THE SCORE. IN FACT, IT SHOWS ETHICS AND CLASS WHEN NOT BOWING TO THIS REQUEST. ***Note that it doesn't have to be "demoralizing" to the opponent for a team to "stop playing." This is the "thought process" that I see cited the most when opposing coaches are asked to "continue to play" as alluded to in above. If this is handled right, and 3rd/4th line players start to contribute more as they should as outlined above/below then you don't need to hold up entirely. That only happens when better control isn't done earlier... Rarely should a game get so bad that a coach would have to instruct team not to shoot if that coach planned accordingly and dressed appropriate players (JV), and played them when the score was still acceptable (with a comfortable lead, but not so that the opponent had any chance of coming back). If a coach finds their team in a game that they have to stop shooting in, which they never should if they control correctly, they should have likely known before the season that this game should have been avoided. If they couldn't get out of it, they should adjust accordingly beforehand as well as during, to the best of their ability. Again, next time someone claims the value of a blowout game, ask them what it is! #7 - It's the responsibility of the weaker team's coaches to communicate about the likelihood for a blowout either before (directly or days earlier if possible if obvious) or during a contest. Many coaches don't want to do so, but this allows opposing coaches to adjust accordingly if there is something that isn't totally obvious. The tough situations occur when an only goalie goes down, half a team is suspended, major illness/injury, etc. and a coach doesn't want to give this away to his opponent, but if a game starts to get out of control any coach needs to adjust once they have the comfortable lead but before 6+ differential. Any good coach can do so as needed. #8 - If you are in a situation where you have only 2 lines and the game is moving towards blowout, you can move D to F and vice-versa, work on neutral zone regrouping, etc., play your PP setup in O-zone and work on the passing setting up continuously w/out going after goals., institute a multi-pas rule before a long shot from perimeter/points, etc. It's important to not form bad habits too obviously, so important to give your team something to work on that will benefit them as needed when you don't have 3rd/4th line players to play in these situations, and even then you may need to make these adjustments with them too... #9 - Don't be afraid to stand up to parents, etc. that are potentially going to be upset about "lost points" that their "star player" should have scored had you not been ethical about how you handled the game. Chances are that you would have the 3rd/4th line parents on you if you didn't adjust... We can avoid a ton of this if we ALL start to do a better job of not allowing these blowouts to get to 10-20+. The problem is that parents/people see one team running to 15-20 and then they expect that all will do the same, and so then their kid's points suffer relative to another that didn't have a coach adjust ethically. #10 - Every coach should ask themselves about what it feels like to be on both sides of this - not only for them as a coach, but also for their kids (12-18 year old girls). Ethically, does a score need to get into the 10-15-20+ differential? Let alone 6-9+? Needing to do so says something about insecurity relative to leads needed by a program to win as well. If a team truly believes they need a 10+ HUGE differential to secure a victory by game's end, that's one thing - but I'd say it's very rare. These decisions are directly a reflection on a coach and program, and again, I don't blame the current coaches for the thresholds that have been deemed acceptable historically, but it may be time to reevaluate these thresholds and how soon we adjust as outlined above. Again, next time someone claims the value of a blowout game, ask them what it is! ===================================================== I would like to state that I think many teams have handled this well (Blowouts) but some have not. I can greatly appreciate the approach that many of my former & current conference and non-conference opponents have taken against my own teams too. I've been on both sides of this, more often the losing end, but I've learned to adjust on the winning side. If you've ever taken a homegrown class A or a youthful/rebuilding AA squad through a strong metro AA schedule, you learn the teams that adjust at/by 6 and those that don't. FORGOT TO MENTION: Some teams will start a potential blowout game rolling 4 lines, or some adaptation of their typical "top game" lineup. I don't know that I agree with this approach right off the bat (as I've never been that fortunate to be that stacked/confident), but definitely this is something that can be phased in as the score differential rises 4-5-6 etc. so that you may end up going 1-2/-3 to start, get to 1-2-3-4, move to 1-3-4/2-3/4 as you get close to 6 and then get to 3/4/3/4, moving D to F, etc. as outlined above... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/16/06 9:37 am

411HOCKEY · Post by **411HOCKEY** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:52 am

Well said. Ther is NO excuse for the BLOWOUTS we have had around the area lately.

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:56 am

ghshockey, Great Post! It's nice to see you back here! It's also nice to see someone take a shot at the game, not single out players, coaches or programs. Very refreshing... Thanks again for a well written and very understandable post! Hockeyhead

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:17 am

Couldn't agree more! www.rebelhockey.com

dublrunr · Post by **dublrunr** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:26 am

Then remove the incentive to do so. In other venues they use a maximum differential rule...typically 3. Nothing magical about 3; it is just what I have seen used. Maybe 6 is the magic number. That way, a 24-3 pasting is reported as 9-3 by MSHSL. The losing team can report all their stats, but the winning team can only report those stats within the differential. This discourages those few (players or coaches) who wish to pad stats at the expense of a weaker team. Only the reported stats are used for MSHSL seeding, awards, etc. Perhaps it is no surprise but the most vocal and vehement opposition to maximum differential does not come from players or coaches, but from parents. Of course, the media will report the actual score, but there is no other incentive for a team to run up a score. Running up the score is not sportsmanship, but if you want to change the behavior, stop rewarding it.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:33 am

Thanks for all the positive coments, there will be some that will be pissed too as they might feel this is all directed at them - but it really isn't. It's more about the hockey community in general than anything. Many of the best teams have had their scores get out of hand historically, and I just think this can be done better.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:34 am

I understand your rationale, and like the proposal, but no other "incentive" should be needed when we're talking about an issue of ethics. The "accepted" threshold needs to be adapted whether this is incentive based and/or ethical standard driven.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:38 am

FORGOT TO MENTION: Some teams will start a potential blowout game rolling 4 lines, or some adaptation of their typical "top game" lineup. I don't know that I agree with this approach right off the bat (as I've never been that fortunate to be that stacked/confident), but definitely this is something that can be phased in as the score differential rises 4-5-6 etc. so that you may end up going 1-2/-3 to start, get to 1-2-3-4, move to 1-3-4/2-3/4 as you get close to 6 and then get to 3/4/3/4, moving D to F, etc. as outlined above...

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:40 am

Thanks, ghs. Particularly that the subject needn't be directed at one team or coach. Its much better discussed without emotions that come with directed comments. I particularly like the idea of practising specific system work when your team is blowiing out another team. My daughters' team will likely be in a blowout game later this month, and there are a couple areas that I know the team could improve upon. I know that the coaches will make sure the 3rd and 4th lines play a lot, but I hope they consider situational work as well. On the scheduling issue, I've seen Rochester Mayo address this. Instead of playing a team twice with each game counting 2 points in conference, the boys team has played a team once for 4 points. They've done this for a long time with the Mankato schools because of the long trip. I mostly like this move because it also allows the school to line up a competitive non-conference game instead of another meaningless one-sided affair. Lastly, I'd pretty much already said all I had to say on the subject a while ago. I'd like to think that discussion such as occurs in this forum can lead to improvement of the game in the future. In the meantime, I'd prefer that discussion remain on the subject instead of drifting into other areas (such as recruiting) or becoming too personal. Hockey is the best game around, and the teams we watch are full of great girls. There's plenty of time in the off-season to talk about possible improvements to the game, but there's only a month or so left in the season, and I'm enjoying it. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyDAD</A> at: 1/16/06 10:56 am

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:18 am

I do believe that the issue isn't any one coach/team but instead we all have an investment in the problem and solution as part of the hockey community. This has just gotten out of hand. It's not good for the sport. As far as unballanced or weighted/powerized scheudles - a great option. Classic Suburban did it last year for Mahtomedi, Tartan, Richfield, and Simley (Simley was able to beg for two games against all except SSP). Tartan went JV only this year, and will be back to full V next.

dublrunr · Post by **dublrunr** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:09 pm

Blowouts (and this discussion) are not unique to hockey- it cuts across every sport. Unfortunately, it is not an ethical issue either. All of us know people in sports, business or other competitive venues where their ethics are quite comfortable with demolishing and demoralizing an opponent; where mercy is a sign of weakness. For some the motivation is ego, but for others it is economic- better jobs or scholarships. The critical question is what behavior are these adults (coaches and parents) modeling for the players? For one perspective, read this weekend's Mpls Star article on sports injuries. The MSHSL as the governing body has the authority and the ability to address blowouts. I don't know if the have the political will because it will not be popular. For another perspective, read Albert Lea High School's "Athletics the Right Way" policy. It was implemented this winter and was developed by a cross-section of the community (players, coaches, parents, fans) based upon a U of Maine document. Two ALHS hockey players (Laura Hillman and Kendra Olchefske) were on the development committee. IMHO I would not be surprised if the Big 9 adopts it next fall and the MSHSL the year after. <a href="http://www.albertleatribune.com/article ...  <a href="http://www.albertleatribune.com/article ...

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:31 pm

Great articles. Also, some have suggested that there be specific rules in place to minimize score differential in blowouts. Some great examples: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The goals are to shorten the game and allow more players to participate. I would go to running time a soon as you get to 6 goal differential. One this happens the 4 period rule should also be suspended. I would also consider shortening the third period to 15 minutes if there was a 6 goal differential after 2 periods.<hr></blockquote> Also, as to the notion of this being an "ethical" issue, I think that we're just having a difference of terminology - but have the same goals in mind.

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:50 pm

Ironically, I read in my latest copy of LPH that the Albert Lea U12B team beat an opponent 22-0. The AL coach has been with that team for a long time and should know better. That's ridiculous.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:06 pm

This is a good example of a couple of things - 1) How what is acceptible at the top level permiates and corrupts to lowest levels and 2) One has to ask what this teaches a bunch of 10-12 year olds. It allows them to embrace this sort of approach as acceptible - which it isn't I should add that I have had some neagtive response to my feelings on this matter. But, that's to be expected I guess. You have to stand for something. And - on that note - mercy isn't weakness, it's your capability to use your power ethically. Or so I feel anyway... A number of years ago I started a JV team (in addition to my V) in St. Paul. We had a very diverse group in many respsects of 20 girls (primarily 7th & 8th graders) that had never played hockey before. Ironically, our first game, we went into Vets against Simley, who was extremely superior. I'll never forget how the coaches of the Simley squad ethically pulled up on these kids that just wanted a chance to play hockey that they never would have gotten anywhere else. Those Simley JV coaches have went on to bigger and better things now in and outside of hockey, but the impact of their actions that one game on the kids that I worked with is still important. Many of those kids didn't give up as they weren't entirely demoralized. Many went on to play many years of oraganized (primarily JV) hockey. The actions of those opposing JV coaches was crucial - and I know this to be true. For someone to state that a blowout has no impact on a developing program and its participants is absolutely crazy. I just hope that all coaches realize this. From what I understand, one of those Simley coaches went on to coach a current top N MN team and hold a top post in the coaches assn., another has a daughter currently playing for me and is a huge supporter of the sport on many levels, and the third has a brother that's the govenor of the state and was a head coach too. The head V coach of that team has went on to be a college coach. Ethically - from a score control standpoint - they had it all right.

dublrunr · Post by **dublrunr** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:11 pm

I completely agree, 22-0 is unnecessary. To paraphrase former ALHS BB coach Matt Addington in the article- not everyone agrees with the policy and some will not follow it initially. The community has established what it considers acceptable behavior and the community must accept it's responsibility to directly challenge unacceptable behavior.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:18 pm

I agree, and I guess this is what this whole thread kind of amounts to for me. I don't have the time to sit on an ethics committee or to be as big a supporter actively as many of the top people are in the coaches’ assn - so I guess this amounts to my avenue of expression of my beliefs. What anyone else cares to do in relation or reaction to this is their choice. Note that while I have the most complete list of coaches' emails at my disposal, I haven't directly emailed this to them, as that's not why I have their emails (not to express my personal beliefs), but this forum (and others like it - thank god for free speech) is. I know far more coaches read this forum than one might imagine, and I guess this is a bit of a personal challenge to all of us to do something about this. I just hope that some don't take this as a chance to run up the score next time and spit in my face, but if they do, so be it as I know I tried to address the ethics of all of this - which currently are flawed and misunderstood, backed up with poor rationale and excuses, etc. that we'va all in society come to accept. We can do better. We're all capable of so much better than what's happened as of late... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 1/17/06 4:28 pm

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 am

I checked out the D4 website to look for more U12 blowouts and I saw some disturbing scores from the AL team. There were 9 games with double digit goal differential including: 14-0 NU 27-0 STP 15-2 WAS 11-0 WIN 11-1 CHIP 21-0 STP 11-0 NU 18-2 LUV 22-0 WAS So that's a 2 game total against STP of 48-0, against NU 25-0 and against WAS 37-2. They sound more like scores from past Viking's games than U12...

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:20 am

They should be playing U-12 A's not U-12 B's!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:11 am

If playing B's - they should be A's.

hockeyhead · Post by **hockeyhead** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:28 am

Southern Minnesota usually doesn't have any teams (or very few) that play at the U-12 A level. It hurts in the long run. If they do, they have to join a south metro district and travel more than usual. Hockeyhead

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:49 am

Right. I hear Red Wing has a very strong U12B team that many were saying should be A. I think SSP has the same setup now too - U12B only but they are a top ranked B team.

blackeye · Post by **blackeye** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:08 pm

B or A?

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:18 pm

The Rochester Mayo/Lourdes vs. Albert Lea game gave us an example of the kind of rewards that winning the right way can provide. Lourdes junior Aubrey Austin, who never played hockey until high school, scored her first career goal. Team parents gave her one of the biggest ovations of the night, and her teammates were elated and all over her. It was a great moment, and one that probably wouldn't have happened if Aubrey had only one shift in the last minute of play. No multiple-goal game by a top scoring player even comes close to the feeling shared by the M/L team & parents last night.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Blowouts

Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

If you are serious about stopping run ups...

Re: Blowouts

Re: If you are serious about stopping run ups...

Re: Blowouts

blowouts

Re: blowouts

Re: blowouts

Re: blowouts

Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

Re: Blowouts

blowouts