The state now gets to see how MSHSL dropped the ball...

[Bronc]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

I'm "assuming" when we talk about finishing checks, most of the time we are talking in terms of the puck JUST LEAVING (within 2 to 3 strides) and hit them like you would normally. No head shots or boarding, but finish.

[almostashappy]

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

There is no new rule that defines "finishing your check" and outlaws that practice...if inthestands is right, then the practice was already illegal in MSHSL games (as opposed to NHL).

Whether rightly or wrongly, there were penalties on the books that were rarely (if ever) called by the refs. Everyone knew this...it's that "unwritten code" that we hear about from time to time. Players can finish their checks, defensemen can aggressively get in the face of opposing players that get "too close" to their goalie, and nobody has to wear a properly fitted mouthguard (it's enough to chew on one end and let the rest of it dangle out of your mouth). And checking from behind was often called "boarding," which made it a 2-min minor rather than 2+10.

With the new rule changes that have come into play recently there has been a noticeable increase in calls made some of this formerly tolerated activity. The "unwritten code" is being revised as we speak, and many people are calling for throwing out that code and calling games exactly as the rules say that they should be called.

If that's going to happen, then we need to look seriously at the rules that are going to be enforced 100% of the time. For example, is "head contact" always going to be a 5-min major, or should the rule be modified to allow for inadvertent contact? And, with respect to this discussion, should "finishing your check" be allowed? If so, then you have to define what that means (e.g., do you allow for momentum? give the on-coming player two strides? etc., etc.)

[inthestands]

JUST LEAVING (within 2 to 3 strides) and hit them like you would normally. No head shots or boarding, but finish.

Realistically, 2 to 3 strides is more than enough time to avoid a check if the puck is gone. That's just my opinion.

As I mentioned earlier, this all depends on the officials doing the game, what kind of game is being played, the type of hits being made, and how the players are reacting to the flow of the game.

There are a lot of things that go into the play of a game, and how that game is called by the officials.

[Bronc]

Haven't the rules or interpretation there of always allowed for the momentum of the player? Isn't the common understanding - if you take more than 3 (some will debate 2) strides after the puck is gone you are probably going to get a interference or charging or roughing or something even for a clean hit (no head etc)?

Seems like that interpretation has always been there and yes, some refs call two vs three etc. But the rule has been in place.

What I am mostly seeing is the desire from many to take any and all intentional contact out of the sport.

In other threads I have even heard discussions on regulating how hard you hit vs just ensuring it is clean. Talk about a gray area.

If Minn HS League and Minn Hockey adapt this as a focus elite players will leave or go to other sports other hockey opportunities. Believe it or not many players enjoy the physical play along with the skill. Not all will leave, but many will and coaches will encourage it to help them develop as players.

[dueling21]

I enjoyed Blatherwick's article on the Olympic model...

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... model.html

By Jack Blatherwick
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist

An e-mail from a 16-year-old defenseman who is playing in Austria for Team USA said virtually the same thing after the Russian game that I’ve heard for 40 years. The international game is really different … and a lot of fun. The Russian skills (individual and team skills) are so good it feels like they have eight players on the ice.

Why is international hockey so different? Because the officials call the game as it is written in the rulebook. Hockey Canada prepares their national junior and Olympic teams for international play by showing a video of ‘strange calls’ made by referees. These are penalties as clearly defined in the rules, but infractions that are not called in North American hockey....click on the above link to continue reading...

[almostashappy]

Haven't the rules or interpretation there of always allowed for the momentum of the player? Isn't the common understanding - if you take more than 3 (some will debate 2) strides after the puck is gone you are probably going to get a interference or charging or roughing or something even for a clean hit (no head etc)?

Seems like that interpretation has always been there and yes, some refs call two vs three etc. But the rule has been in place.

What I am mostly seeing is the desire from many to take any and all intentional contact out of the sport.

In other threads I have even heard discussions on regulating how hard you hit vs just ensuring it is clean. Talk about a gray area.

If Minn HS League and Minn Hockey adapt this as a focus elite players will leave or go to other sports other hockey opportunities. Believe it or not many players enjoy the physical play along with the skill. Not all will leave, but many will and coaches will encourage it to help them develop as players.

There is, in some instances, a difference between both "common understanding" of the rules (and how they are applied in a game by the refs) and the rules themselves.

Some people would call this paying lip-service, or CYA....for example, the MSHSL can point to the rule on the books that players always have to wear a properly fitted mouthguard and say that they are concerned about concussions...but then they never enforce that rule, to the point where kids blatantly ignore it (hard to miss the mouth guard that is dangling from the teeth of a center man as he leans down for a face off ).

Why have rules on the books if everyone is ignoring them and they aren't being enforced? I would rather have an open debate and a verbalized common understanding on what the rules of the game should be, and then have those rules enforced.

With respect to finishing checks, I'm looking for some middle ground. How about a rule that allows for a checking player's momentum and gives him two strides after the opponent has passed the puck...so long as that player doesn't increase speed or the strength of his hit within those two strides? The players could still go all-out towards the opponent, and aren't 100% responsible for avoiding contact after the puck is released...they just can't amp up their impact speed/strength once that puck is released. And yes, that would be a judgment call that I would allow the refs to make based on flow of the game, how others are hitting, stage of the game, etc., etc.

[Bronc]

Haven't the rules or interpretation there of always allowed for the momentum of the player? Isn't the common understanding - if you take more than 3 (some will debate 2) strides after the puck is gone you are probably going to get a interference or charging or roughing or something even for a clean hit (no head etc)?

Seems like that interpretation has always been there and yes, some refs call two vs three etc. But the rule has been in place.

What I am mostly seeing is the desire from many to take any and all intentional contact out of the sport.

In other threads I have even heard discussions on regulating how hard you hit vs just ensuring it is clean. Talk about a gray area.

If Minn HS League and Minn Hockey adapt this as a focus elite players will leave or go to other sports other hockey opportunities. Believe it or not many players enjoy the physical play along with the skill. Not all will leave, but many will and coaches will encourage it to help them develop as players.

There is, in some instances, a difference between both "common understanding" of the rules (and how they are applied in a game by the refs) and the rules themselves.

Some people would call this paying lip-service, or CYA....for example, the MSHSL can point to the rule on the books that players always have to wear a properly fitted mouthguard and say that they are concerned about concussions...but then they never enforce that rule, to the point where kids blatantly ignore it (hard to miss the mouth guard that is dangling from the teeth of a center man as he leans down for a face off ).

Why have rules on the books if everyone is ignoring them and they aren't being enforced? I would rather have an open debate and a verbalized common understanding on what the rules of the game should be, and then have those rules enforced.

With respect to finishing checks, I'm looking for some middle ground. How about a rule that allows for a checking player's momentum and gives him two strides after the opponent has passed the puck...so long as that player doesn't increase speed or the strength of his hit within those two strides? The players could still go all-out towards the opponent, and aren't 100% responsible for avoiding contact after the puck is released...they just can't amp up their impact speed/strength once that puck is released. And yes, that would be a judgment call that I would allow the refs to make based on flow of the game, how others are hitting, stage of the game, etc., etc.

I appreciate the debate and discussion before things are implemented.

Boarding, charging, head contact, etc need to be called and are for the most part not ambiguos (sp?).

However to try and regulate speed and strength of a ck(?).

In one sentence you are wanting to take out gray areas and in the next adding more.

Players should be commended and rewarded for working out, making themselves stronger physically and mentally. Not asked to slow down because another player has choosen in many cases not to work on that part of their game.

Teach proper technique etc, but to regulate speed and strength and penalize them for that is not only a gray area (I believe could not be consistently enforced), but is wrong to try.

I cannot ever vision playing a sport or coaching one where I would tell a big or small fast strong kid to slow down and not hit hard because another player is not as prepared.

I can vision coaching up others to get faster, stronger, work on their vision and decision making skills so they do not put themselves in a vulnerable place. And until they can demonstrate that, they may have to play at a lower level until they can catch up.

[HShockeywatcher]

These two posts hit very hard on the topic at hand:

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.

I enjoyed Blatherwick's article on the Olympic model...

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... model.html

By Jack Blatherwick
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist

An e-mail from a 16-year-old defenseman who is playing in Austria for Team USA said virtually the same thing after the Russian game that I’ve heard for 40 years. The international game is really different … and a lot of fun. The Russian skills (individual and team skills) are so good it feels like they have eight players on the ice.

Why is international hockey so different? Because the officials call the game as it is written in the rulebook. Hockey Canada prepares their national junior and Olympic teams for international play by showing a video of ‘strange calls’ made by referees. These are penalties as clearly defined in the rules, but infractions that are not called in North American hockey....click on the above link to continue reading...

By not calling the game by the rules, we are doing two things:
1. Playing a different game. Period. The game has changed simply because calls aren't made (whoever's fault it is). Safety is a concern, but as written, the game is much safer than played in the MSHSL right now.
2. Not preparing our players for their future as well as we could. Some post on here and make fun of it by saying "let's just use girl's rules" or similar comments. They become better hockey players, plain and simple.

Think of any really good high school hockey player. Do they spend a lot of time in the box? Do they have any of these issues? Probably very few.

[HShockeywatcher]

From the article:

"Why are Russian and European skills so good that the first time you play them you think they have extra players on the ice? Because their adults can read. They have decided that winning depends on playing as effectively as possible within the rules."

This is exactly what a couple of us have been saying. It's simply following the rules. The adults in the situation need to act like just that, adults.

Then:

"If Minnesota Hockey enforces the rules permanently as they will in these next weeks, coaches will have to go back to the drawing board and teach offensive skills like passing and playmaking. Minnesota would become the leader in North America, and perhaps someday a visiting team would say, “It seems like they are using eight players on the ice.”"

Isn't this what we want?

[icehornet]

I enjoyed Blatherwick's article on the Olympic model...

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... model.html

By Jack Blatherwick
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist

An e-mail from a 16-year-old defenseman who is playing in Austria for Team USA said virtually the same thing after the Russian game that I’ve heard for 40 years. The international game is really different … and a lot of fun. The Russian skills (individual and team skills) are so good it feels like they have eight players on the ice.

Why is international hockey so different? Because the officials call the game as it is written in the rulebook. Hockey Canada prepares their national junior and Olympic teams for international play by showing a video of ‘strange calls’ made by referees. These are penalties as clearly defined in the rules, but infractions that are not called in North American hockey....click on the above link to continue reading...

Well written article. This stood out to me.......

However, in North America, we’ve replaced the written rules with a set of unwritten ones. Basically, they all amount to one thing: If you’re not as skillful as your opponent, use your stick to slow him down – intimidate opponents with illegal checks – drop the gloves and go at it when you’re frustrated.

Is this the refs fault? The coaches? The players? The parents? All of these play a role. This isn't about removing checking or the physical part out of hockey, but it's morphed into such a different game than what we're seeing internationally that less emphasis is being put on the skill of the game.

[Bronc]

I enjoyed Blatherwick's article on the Olympic model...

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... model.html

By Jack Blatherwick
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist

An e-mail from a 16-year-old defenseman who is playing in Austria for Team USA said virtually the same thing after the Russian game that I’ve heard for 40 years. The international game is really different … and a lot of fun. The Russian skills (individual and team skills) are so good it feels like they have eight players on the ice.

Why is international hockey so different? Because the officials call the game as it is written in the rulebook. Hockey Canada prepares their national junior and Olympic teams for international play by showing a video of ‘strange calls’ made by referees. These are penalties as clearly defined in the rules, but infractions that are not called in North American hockey....click on the above link to continue reading...

Well written article. This stood out to me.......

However, in North America, we’ve replaced the written rules with a set of unwritten ones. Basically, they all amount to one thing: If you’re not as skillful as your opponent, use your stick to slow him down – intimidate opponents with illegal checks – drop the gloves and go at it when you’re frustrated.

Is this the refs fault? The coaches? The players? The parents? All of these play a role. This isn't about removing checking or the physical part out of hockey, but it's morphed into such a different game than what we're seeing internationally that less emphasis is being put on the skill of the game.

The physical and the skill go together. Russian players like Ovechkin do both (did you notice he just got a three game suspension)

Olympics - Olympic Ice. NHL small ice. WCHA very physical and strong game with skill (notice Buddish and Rau on the ice together)

One does not replace the other I realize some like physical more than skill and others like skill over physical.

I like the kid that can do both.

I don't think we should ask the fast skilled player to slow down and make less moves because others can't catch him, nor do I believe fast strong kids to not make hard legal hits because another player does not like them.

[SnowedIn]

I enjoyed Blatherwick's article on the Olympic model...

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... model.html

By Jack Blatherwick
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist

An e-mail from a 16-year-old defenseman who is playing in Austria for Team USA said virtually the same thing after the Russian game that I’ve heard for 40 years. The international game is really different … and a lot of fun. The Russian skills (individual and team skills) are so good it feels like they have eight players on the ice.

Why is international hockey so different? Because the officials call the game as it is written in the rulebook. Hockey Canada prepares their national junior and Olympic teams for international play by showing a video of ‘strange calls’ made by referees. These are penalties as clearly defined in the rules, but infractions that are not called in North American hockey....click on the above link to continue reading...

Well written article. This stood out to me.......

However, in North America, we’ve replaced the written rules with a set of unwritten ones. Basically, they all amount to one thing: If you’re not as skillful as your opponent, use your stick to slow him down – intimidate opponents with illegal checks – drop the gloves and go at it when you’re frustrated.

Is this the refs fault? The coaches? The players? The parents? All of these play a role. This isn't about removing checking or the physical part out of hockey, but it's morphed into such a different game than what we're seeing internationally that less emphasis is being put on the skill of the game.

The physical and the skill go together. Russian players like Ovechkin do both (did you notice he just got a three game suspension)

Olympics - Olympic Ice. NHL small ice. WCHA very physical and strong game with skill (notice Buddish and Rau on the ice together)

One does not replace the other I realize some like physical more than skill and others like skill over physical.

I like the kid that can do both.

I don't think we should ask the fast skilled player to slow down and make less moves because others can't catch him, nor do I believe fast strong kids to not make hard legal hits because another player does not like them.

Great points on both sides. Everyone has their preference as to how the game should be played as far as the amount of physical play. It is a contact sport and traditionally in North Americal a VERY physical sport. With the enforcement stepped up on interference rules years ago and the influx of Europeans into the NHL, the sport as become much more of a skilled game. But we still have a lot more physical play here than overseas. I personally think its great with both sides. Europeans have also picked up their physical play when you watch the international games. I also like the 2 stride guideline that has been followed for finishing checks.

Ultimately the rules and enforcement will dictate what game is played. I would hope that the rules enforced locally in Minn would be consistent with what USA and Canada Hockey enforce so that the players here would have a chance to develop and compete on the same playing field as the rest of NA - especially for the elite players that will be competing with these players beyond youth hockey.

[HShockeywatcher]

Great points on both sides. Everyone has their preference as to how the game should be played as far as the amount of physical play. It is a contact sport and traditionally in North Americal a VERY physical sport. With the enforcement stepped up on interference rules years ago and the influx of Europeans into the NHL, the sport as become much more of a skilled game. But we still have a lot more physical play here than overseas. I personally think its great with both sides. Europeans have also picked up their physical play when you watch the international games. I also like the 2 stride guideline that has been followed for finishing checks.

Ultimately the rules and enforcement will dictate what game is played. I would hope that the rules enforced locally in Minn would be consistent with what USA and Canada Hockey enforce so that the players here would have a chance to develop and compete on the same playing field as the rest of NA - especially for the elite players that will be competing with these players beyond youth hockey.

Where I disagree with what you said is that you are equating "physical play" and "illegal play." From what is written in the article and discussed, the "European game" doesn't discourage physical play in any way, it *discourages* illegal play.

I don't like physical play more than "skill" or vice versa, I like games to be played by the rules. Which is what is being called for.

[almostashappy]

I cannot ever vision playing a sport or coaching one where I would tell a big or small fast strong kid to slow down and not hit hard because another player is not as prepared.

Perhaps my post was too muddled.

I am not asking players to slow down and hit less hard when the try to check. What I'm suggesting is that the players shouldn't be allowed to speed up and strengthen their hits once they see that their target no longer has the puck. Irrespective of the relative sizes of the two players. And I don't think that this is just as gray a proposal as the status quo...can't you watch a player skate and tell when he is trying to increase his speed? Can't you spot a checking player that winds his arms and torso back, so that he can swing forward and add that momentum to the strength of the hit?

I'm not suggesting that a player shouldn't be allowed to increase speed or swing his arms back to gain some umph...just saying that he needs to do all that before the puck is passed, and be within two strides of the target.

Right now there is no allowance on the books for checking a player that has given up possession of the puck. No two strides, no accounting for momentum... no exceptions.

If you want to allow players to finish their checks the way that you think it's always been done, fine by me. Just propose an enforceable (and enforced) rule that allows for that on the ice. Let's get that unwritten code written down.

[Bronc]

Great points on both sides. Everyone has their preference as to how the game should be played as far as the amount of physical play. It is a contact sport and traditionally in North Americal a VERY physical sport. With the enforcement stepped up on interference rules years ago and the influx of Europeans into the NHL, the sport as become much more of a skilled game. But we still have a lot more physical play here than overseas. I personally think its great with both sides. Europeans have also picked up their physical play when you watch the international games. I also like the 2 stride guideline that has been followed for finishing checks.

Ultimately the rules and enforcement will dictate what game is played. I would hope that the rules enforced locally in Minn would be consistent with what USA and Canada Hockey enforce so that the players here would have a chance to develop and compete on the same playing field as the rest of NA - especially for the elite players that will be competing with these players beyond youth hockey.[/quote]

Well Stated --

[mulesrbest]

How about getting back to skill and teaching the kids at a young age the basics of the game so we can get back to the days when Gretzky and the Oilers changed the game. With new rules, skill will rule over kids with little or no skill that are out to make a big check and/or hurt someone!

Refs have a tough task, fastest game in the world and we need to showcase the skill these young kids have, not the goons!

[inthestands]

Whatever change comes, it needs to start from mites on up.

You can't start at the high school level, and expect learned behavior to change. That is for the coaches, players and officials.

Take a look at the mix of US and foreign players 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today.

Should be evident where the top players are coming from.

[SnowedIn]

How about getting back to skill and teaching the kids at a young age the basics of the game so we can get back to the days when Gretzky and the Oilers changed the game. With new rules, skill will rule over kids with little or no skill that are out to make a big check and/or hurt someone!

Refs have a tough task, fastest game in the world and we need to showcase the skill these young kids have, not the goons!

This isn't about removing checking or the physical part out of hockey, but it's morphed into such a different game than what we're seeing internationally that less emphasis is being put on the skill of the game.

I completely agree that skills needs to be the emphasis starting at the young ages. That would be the single biggest "game changer" in increasing the skill of the game in youth hockey. Nothing else will do that. Most coaches focus on the game play. Most of the highly talented skaters and puckhandlers are getting their skills away from their teams with skill trainers and doing the reps on their own. Talk to your sons coach and get them to buy in because most coaches teach very little skills. They don't get it. Hopefully with the USA Hockey campaign this will start to change.

That being said, hockey is a contact sport and checking is one of the many skills that you need as a hockey player. The NHL is highly skilled and physical. That's a good thing IMO. The Oilers brought a new brand of hockey to the NHL because they had a lot of skilled players but they were also very physical, threw a lot of checks, finished checks, had guys that chirped (Tikanen) and guys that dropped their gloves. Messier was as physical as he was skilled as were many of the great players on that team. Checking is a skill and the best checkers are the most skilled skaters because they can catch guys, angle and use their edges better. You can't win a Stanley Cup unless you are skilled and highly physical. Teams get beaten up in 7 game series, after series... You have to dish it out and be able to take it both with your skills and your body.

Hockey in North America has "morphed" into a faced paced highly skilled game that is also physical. However it is much less physical than it used to be because of the amount of speed and skill and virtual elimination of interference. To say that it has morphed into more of a physical game than in the past would mean you haven't really followed hockey over the past 2-3 decades. Look at the amazing skilled players that North America has been producing over the past 10 years. The number of off the charts skilled players is a direct result of the changes we've seen in the game here.

It used to be that "goons" were considered those players that a coach would send over the boards to fight. Most were not gamers. They are all but gone now because of how fast and skilled the game is. Now some people are equating goons with those that throw checks??? Hey, get rid of the illegal checks - yes! We don't want to see complete stupidity and resulting injuries. But checking and finishing checks is perfectly legal and does not make someone a goon.

Tom Thompson (former assistant GM of the wild): How the North American-European divide has narrowed
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/3 ... rowed.html

IMO the biggest change we need in North America is to get coaches to focus on skill training and MUCH less on systems and you'll really see even more improvement and phenoms produced by North American youth hockey. But checking is one of the many skills that they our kids need to learn and is a great and important part of the game.

[icehornet]

SnowedIn, no doubt I agree with you. The game has definitely adapted to being faster and more skill based. And yes, checking is an important part of the game but it is still the part of the game that causes serious injuries to players. In no way do I want checking removed, but the more we can reduce the chance of serious injury to our players (especially the younger ones) the better. That, to me, is what this is all about.

Great points on focusing more on individual skill development at younger ages.

[Bronc]

Snowedin - nice statement and I agree for the most part.

Skill vs Systems should be the focus.

Skill development is critical, ie: Skating, Transitioning, Puck Handling, Confidence to beat people in one on one situations, Playmaking, checking, back checking, forechecking, body checking and finishing checks, avoiding cks, etc.

If we want our younger players to be well rounded developing "ALL" of these skills will make them even better and greatly reducing risk of injury.

Trying to shield them from parts of the game only put them at greater risk and behind the learning and skill curve.

[rudy]

Several posters have said that players and referees will adjust to the new consequences for certain penalties. The referees certainly are. At times, they are using certain minors so they don't have to inflict a major on a player that did indeed commit that major under the new enforcement.

Example: Edina player Thursday night leads with his hands and hits an opponent in the head straight on with only a modest amount of force. Rather than head contact -- which it clearly was -- the official calls elbowing, even though an elbow was never involved.

I've also seen similar minors -- x-checking, roughing, etc. -- used to avoid calling a more consequential major.

Every time someone tries to fix something there is an unintended consequence. That is particularly true when decisions are made in haste, without data and without meaningful input from those most affected.

Maybe there is a tolerance for this consequence. In the meantime, players and coaches are left to wonder what actions constitute what consequence.

[inthestands]

There has been an additional email sent from the MSHSL regarding inadvertant or moderate contact to the head.

If you haven't read it, you might find a coach or official that has it.

The content will clear up your example. Those infractions are not to be called as the 5 minute major, but as a 2 minute minor.

[rudy]

Yes, I'd love to see that email. Certainly there is a coach or official who has a copy and can post it here.

Given all the fanfare of announcing the penalty adjustments -- tied to the No. 1 high school sports story in many years in this state -- I wonder why the MSHSL was so quiet about this reconsideration? Didn't MSHSL officers just have a big meeting that was covered by the metro's two major newspapers? You would think they wudda brought it up then.

[rudy]

There has been an additional email sent from the MSHSL regarding inadvertant or moderate contact to the head.

If you haven't read it, you might find a coach or official that has it.

The content will clear up your example. Those infractions are not to be called as the 5 minute major, but as a 2 minute minor.

Based on your comment above, I have communicated with a prominent Class AA coach in the metro area. That coach says he has heard nothing about any email that you say was sent by the MSHSL. And trust me, if there were such an email, this coach would have gotten it.

[nikebauer05]

Based on your comment above, I have communicated with a prominent Class AA coach in the metro area. That coach says he has heard nothing about any email that you say was sent by the MSHSL. And trust me, if there were such an email, this coach would have gotten it.

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhh lets all make guesses on which coach he knows. We've got a celebrity in the house.