HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Just out of curiosity,

How many of the people offering opinions on how/what should be called, have officiated hockey at any level?

inthestands wrote:Just out of curiosity,

How many of the people offering opinions on how/what should be called, have officiated hockey at any level?

I have never refed at any level...not a good enough skater. My opinions for the most part have been in support of the refs because I believe they have a thankless job of trying to keep the game 'clean' without influencing the outcome too much. I know several refs that work at the high school and collegiate level and they all take their job very seriously. Many of the comments on these pages have implied that refs need to 'make the correct call' as if that is obvious in all cases.

My belief, as repeatedly stated, is that if the MSHSL (and now Mn. Hockey) had allowed the increased awareness/acceptance of refs to error on the side of caution when making calls, that the problem would have been taken care of WITHOUT increasing the penalty to 5 minute majors. I trust the refs discretion and think that giving them the balance of the season to see how they deal with the situation would have been the proper approach.

inthestands wrote:Just out of curiosity,

How many of the people offering opinions on how/what should be called, have officiated hockey at any level?

I am in no way pointing fingers at anyone. Just curious.

seek & destroy wrote:

inthestands wrote:Just out of curiosity,

How many of the people offering opinions on how/what should be called, have officiated hockey at any level?

I have never refed at any level...not a good enough skater. My opinions for the most part have been in support of the refs because I believe they have a thankless job of trying to keep the game 'clean' without influencing the outcome too much. I know several refs that work at the high school and collegiate level and they all take their job very seriously. Many of the comments on these pages have implied that refs need to 'make the correct call' as if that is obvious in all cases.

My belief, as repeatedly stated, is that if the MSHSL (and now Mn. Hockey) had allowed the increased awareness/acceptance of refs to error on the side of caution when making calls, that the problem would have been taken care of WITHOUT increasing the penalty to 5 minute majors. I trust the refs discretion and think that giving them the balance of the season to see how they deal with the situation would have been the proper approach.

I'm in the same boat...skating backwards was the first thing that my kids were able to do better than their old man. I also appreciate how hard it is to referee hockey games, and have (in upthread posts) noted both how inflexible and impractical it is for people to insist that they should always be able to 'make the correct call'.

And of course, knowing what that correct call is is always subject to debate, as we saw this morning in the back-and-forth over the AV-LN game.

seek & destroy wrote:

inthestands wrote:Just out of curiosity,

How many of the people offering opinions on how/what should be called, have officiated hockey at any level?

I have never refed at any level...not a good enough skater. My opinions for the most part have been in support of the refs because I believe they have a thankless job of trying to keep the game 'clean' without influencing the outcome too much. I know several refs that work at the high school and collegiate level and they all take their job very seriously. Many of the comments on these pages have implied that refs need to 'make the correct call' as if that is obvious in all cases.

My belief, as repeatedly stated, is that if the MSHSL (and now Mn. Hockey) had allowed the increased awareness/acceptance of refs to error on the side of caution when making calls, that the problem would have been taken care of WITHOUT increasing the penalty to 5 minute majors. I trust the refs discretion and think that giving them the balance of the season to see how they deal with the situation would have been the proper approach.

I agree with everyone you say in principle.

The issue is that refs have been allowed to do this for quite some time. Refs are human and underpaid for what they do; I'm not going to say they won't miss things or put them down for trying. For all of them it is not their main income/job/career. That being said, refs have been allowed to err on the side of caution and have discretion and they have been for years calling CFB penalties as boarding and not calling other penalties that should be called. I won't begin to pretend to know what their thought process is, but the game has evolved to where the rules aren't being called and coaches/players/refs all have influence on what is or isn't called.

While I don't think speeding is the best analogy, let's pretend it is. This would be similar to instead of allowing people to go 76 in a 70 zone without penalty, cracking down, announcing they would be doubling speeding fines and giving them for going 71.

Whether right or wrong, this change makes it so there is no grey area. I agree that they didn't need to make everything majors, but I can get behind it in the interest of safety.

Another thing this discussion gets at is whether you believe penalties should be deterrents from commuting the infraction or a price for committing the infraction.
Personally, I look at the intent to be a deterrent. "We don't want you doing X so we have this penalty as a deterrent to the behavior." This seems to also be the view of the MSHSL.

The other view is along the lines of "we don't care if you do X, but if you do you must have this penalty." There is a very thin line between the two, but it really seems the side you personally live may have a lot to do with your opinion of the issue.

I'm in the same boat...skating backwards was the first thing that my kids were able to do better than their old man. I also appreciate how hard it is to referee hockey games, and have (in upthread posts) noted both how inflexible and impractical it is for people to insist that they should always be able to 'make the correct call'.

And of course, knowing what that correct call is is always subject to debate, as we saw this morning in the back-and-forth over the AV-LN game.[/quote]

I believe HS Ref have in the past done a great job implementing the rules and calling games.

I do believe currently if the high school league wanted greater focus on head shots and boarding they just needed to tell the ref and their association that and if would have been done.

While head shots and boarding should be called I completely "disagree" with taking away good clean ck even if it is just finishing a ck. That should not be encouraged to be taken out of the game, but encouraged to be done properly.

Finishing a check is a critical part of the game and help players develop skill skill understanding how to shoot or distribute or avoid a clean safe hit.

Yes there are good safe clean hits even when a player does not have a puck. Heck in football they even give the pro's two steps to hit the QB's (and they are the most protected species on the field).

Less is not more, just less.

Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

Frankly, it's not even part of the game. "Finishing the check" was used to describe momentum by a player used to check a player even after they got rid of the puck. There's no such thing and it's a penalty plain and simple. A check is used to separate a puck carrier from the puck. Period. Once he's not a puck carrier he can't be hit. In "the old days" there was some allowance for the player to continue their momentum and check a player who no longer has the puck. It was always open to interpretation but now it's not.

Think how football has changed. You used to be able to rush the quarterback and tackle him, forcefully, after he released the ball for the purpose of "finishing the play." It's not allowed anymore and the responsibility is on the rushing defensive player to hold up, alter his course, fall down, whatever. But, he can't continue momentum and tackle the quarterback without the ball or it's a penalty.

"Finishing the check" really never was a legal part of the game and is definitely a violation now. Let, up, change your course or fall down but whatever you do don't blast the player without the puck or you'll be heading to the box.

Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

observer wrote:

Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

Frankly, it's not even part of the game. "Finishing the check" was used to describe momentum by a player used to check a player even after they got rid of the puck. There's no such thing and it's a penalty plain and simple. A check is used to separate a puck carrier from the puck. Period. Once he's not a puck carrier he can't be hit. In "the old days" there was some allowance for the player to continue their momentum and check a player who no longer has the puck. It was always open to interpretation but now it's not.

...

"Finishing the check" really never was a legal part of the game and is definitely a violation now. Let, up, change your course or fall down but whatever you do don't blast the player without the puck or you'll be heading to the box.

Is there a difference in how puck possession is defined between NHL and MSHSL?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/03/1 ... the-check/

Is there a difference in how puck possession is defined between NHL and MSHSL?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/03/1 ... the-check/

Seriously, there is very little to no similarity between the NHL and MSHSL play, or caliber of player.

inthestands wrote:Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

Players need to learn how to read and react quickly with the puck and realize consequences if they do not learn how to pick up the pace.

Some learn because they chuck the puck and get benched and some learn because there is physical contact and they don't like it.

In all major sports the standards for penalties and illegal hits, etc are more severe for the Pros vs College and College vs HS, etc.

For some reason in hockey the MN Hockey and HS league wants to be more restrictive then the higher levels and more severe.

Bronc wrote: Players need to learn how to read and react quickly with the puck and realize consequences if they do not learn how to pick up the pace.

Some learn because they chuck the puck and get benched and some learn because there is physical contact and they don't like it.

In all major sports the standards for penalties and illegal hits, etc are more severe for the Pros vs College and College vs HS, etc.

For some reason in hockey the MN Hockey and HS league wants to be more restrictive then the higher levels and more severe.

I'm sorry, but this is just insanely backwards. You are arguing that players learn how to read and react quickly by getting hit after they got rid of the puck? Isn't the bolded part a little odd as well? If the players ultimate goal is to play at the highest level why wouldn't we have them follow similar rules and face similar consequences? The level of play is drastically different but that is no excuse to give a free pass to more dangerous play, in fact, it should be the exact opposite because you have significantly less skilled players who can easily lose control.

inthestands wrote:Is there a difference in how puck possession is defined between NHL and MSHSL?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/03/1 ... the-check/

Seriously, there is very little to no similarity between the NHL and MSHSL play, or caliber of player.

I didn't claim that there was, and I wasn't talking about player caliber or play. I was pointing out potential differences in the rules.

In the NHL, it appears that a player who passes the puck is considered to be in possession of that puck until another player takes possession. That means you can still check the player who made the pass while the puck is in transit. My question is whether the same definition applies in MSHSL...or whether making a legal check to "separate an opposing player from the puck" actually requires the puck to be in the general vicinity of the opposing player's stick blade.

almostashappy wrote:

inthestands wrote:Is there a difference in how puck possession is defined between NHL and MSHSL?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/03/1 ... the-check/

Seriously, there is very little to no similarity between the NHL and MSHSL play, or caliber of player.

I didn't claim that there was, and I wasn't talking about player caliber or play. I was pointing out potential differences in the rules.

In the NHL, it appears that a player who passes the puck is considered to be in possession of that puck until another player takes possession. That means you can still check the player who made the pass while the puck is in transit. My question is whether the same definition applies in MSHSL...or whether making a legal check to "separate an opposing player from the puck" actually requires the puck to be in the general vicinity of the opposing player's stick blade.

Sorry wasn't trying to be a prick.

Once the puck leaves the players stick, they are no longer in possession.

It's a clear definition, that's clouded by teaching players to finish a play when they most likely shouldn't be making it.

Puck on the stick, check is good. Puck off the stick, check is not good.

inthestands wrote:

almostashappy wrote:

inthestands wrote:Is there a difference in how puck possession is defined between NHL and MSHSL?

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/03/1 ... the-check/

Seriously, there is very little to no similarity between the NHL and MSHSL play, or caliber of player.

I didn't claim that there was, and I wasn't talking about player caliber or play. I was pointing out potential differences in the rules.

In the NHL, it appears that a player who passes the puck is considered to be in possession of that puck until another player takes possession. That means you can still check the player who made the pass while the puck is in transit. My question is whether the same definition applies in MSHSL...or whether making a legal check to "separate an opposing player from the puck" actually requires the puck to be in the general vicinity of the opposing player's stick blade.

Sorry wasn't trying to be a prick.

Once the puck leaves the players stick, they are no longer in possession.

It's a clear definition, that's clouded by teaching players to finish a play when they most likely shouldn't be making it.

Puck on the stick, check is good. Puck off the stick, check is not good.

So do we defend the refs who constantly don't call this a penalty because we want it to be up their discretion?

While I look at these from a safety perspective, I mainly look at this issue from a rules perspective. What rules of the game are needed to be followed and what rules do we not care about?
It's funny to see what little rules in major sports aren't called.

And we are endorsing it in high school.

What rules of the game are needed to be followed and what rules do we not care about?

Ever look at mouthgaurds during a HS hockey contest?

Hockey has let a lot go little by little, year by year.

I don't think slashing, elbowing, and charging are called anywhere near the level where they should be by the rulebook.

Part of the problem is there are too many coaches and players who complain about every infraction and too many officials who let them complain. I don't think there is a sport where the whining is anywhere near as bad as it is in hockey. That's a huge part of the problem, clean up the sportsmanship and you'll clean up the game, when one of the coaches who has enough pull to get rules changed mid season also has one of the poorest sportsmanship tendancies around we have a problem.

If the MSHSL started cracking down on the schools, the schools started cracking down on their coaches, the coaches on the players, and the officials on the coaches and players we'd have a better and safer sport.

inthestands wrote:What rules of the game are needed to be followed and what rules do we not care about?

Ever look at mouthgaurds during a HS hockey contest?

Doubt it, but they should. And this is why I'm asking. The lists are long in the main three sports.

inthestands wrote:Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

The player with the puck feels no pressure from defending skaters....

the is huge for D-men making outlet passes, if they know they will be hit, they will make bad passes, but if they feel no pressure they will do whatever they please..

You lose intensity, and a big advantage if your team cannot pressure the puck carrier like the way hockey was DESIGNED

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:

inthestands wrote:Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

The player with the puck feels no pressure from defending skaters....

the is huge for D-men making outlet passes, if they know they will be hit, they will make bad passes, but if they feel no pressure they will do whatever they please..

You lose intensity, and a big advantage if your team cannot pressure the puck carrier like the way hockey was DESIGNED

Help me understand your thinking here, because I'm not following you.

If checking is still legal, how would this D never feel pressure? If a player has the puck, he may be pressured and even checked in a legal manner. None of this has changed. That's still part of the game.

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:

inthestands wrote:Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

The player with the puck feels no pressure from defending skaters....

the is huge for D-men making outlet passes, if they know they will be hit, they will make bad passes, but if they feel no pressure they will do whatever they please..

You lose intensity, and a big advantage if your team cannot pressure the puck carrier like the way hockey was DESIGNED

But, we aren't talking about checking in general, which is designed to get puck possession changed.

This disscussion is based around "finishing" a check. If a player has the puck, checks can be finished all day long.

If a player is reading and reacting to play around them, moving the puck and checking is a huge part of the game.

This "finishing a check" is a phrase based around hitting someone without the puck. Plain and simple.

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:

inthestands wrote:Finishing a check is a critical part of the game

While I don't disagree with your post, please explain the critical part of the game that would be missing if players didn't finish a check.

The player with the puck feels no pressure from defending skaters....

the is huge for D-men making outlet passes, if they know they will be hit, they will make bad passes, but if they feel no pressure they will do whatever they please..

You lose intensity, and a big advantage if your team cannot pressure the puck carrier like the way hockey was DESIGNED

Agree.

Please get me up to speed on this. Is there a new rule that specifically has changed the way "finishing your check" is supposed to be called?

While checking someone without the puck is obviously against the rules, finishing a check less than a second after a player releases a puck has always been part of the game at every level that has had checking. I know its debatable but IMO the reasons stated by Old Time are the reasons why it is good for the game.

My main curiousity though is to find out if the new rules define "finishing checks" and outlaw them now, or if this is just a debate on why finishing checks should be allowed or not.

Thanks

My main curiousity though is to find out if the new rules define "finishing checks" and outlaw them now, or if this is just a debate on why finishing checks should be allowed or not.

I think I can help. There are no "new rules". The only change is removal of the 2 minute minor option.

You can check if the player is in possession of the puck. If the player is in control of the puck, you can start and finish the check as long as you don't make head contact.

inthestands wrote:My main curiousity though is to find out if the new rules define "finishing checks" and outlaw them now, or if this is just a debate on why finishing checks should be allowed or not.

I think I can help. There are no "new rules". The only change is removal of the 2 minute minor option.

You can check if the player is in possession of the puck. If the player is in control of the puck, you can start and finish the check as long as you don't make head contact.

My belief is the old interpretation was if they get rid of the puck and you take two strides or less you can finish the ck. Naturally no head contact is to be made.

Are a couple of you suggesting that should not be allowed now? Earlier some one mentioned they are wanting to discourage finisihing cks at all and that is how this got started.

Bronc wrote:

inthestands wrote:My main curiousity though is to find out if the new rules define "finishing checks" and outlaw them now, or if this is just a debate on why finishing checks should be allowed or not.

I think I can help. There are no "new rules". The only change is removal of the 2 minute minor option.

You can check if the player is in possession of the puck. If the player is in control of the puck, you can start and finish the check as long as you don't make head contact.

My belief is the old interpretation was if they get rid of the puck and you take two strides or less you can finish the ck. Naturally no head contact is to be made.

Are a couple of you suggesting that should not be allowed now? Earlier some one mentioned they are wanting to discourage finisihing cks at all and that is how this got started.

No suggestion either way. Would like the players to use common sense.

I have not read or heard that interpretation, but there is a lot of gray area related to those hits in boys hockey. It most likely depends on the officials working that game.

Best rule of thumb, if the puck is gone, you probably shouldn't make a big hit. If the puck is there, by all means put it on him.

I'm "assuming" when we talk about finishing checks, most times we are talking in terms of the puck being long gone.