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

[HShockeywatcher]

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.

It continues to crack me up reading posts in support of playing the game not by the rules.

I was watching the Edina game - terrible call. The commentators went on talking about another call about how "in light of many injuries refs are calling the game tighter..." To me, and many it sounds like, this has very little to do with safety and much more to do with playing a game many of us love by the rules of that game.
I've given the extreme example of picking up a puck and throwing it into the net. Why is that not allowed? It has nothing to do with safety...it's simply against the rules. So it checking someone from behind.

The MSHSL wants [I'm inferring here] to make the penalties for infractions deterrents from them happening. Not only is less called than what is written, but players seem to have this attitude that these infractions are okay, you just have to pay a price if you do it. Similar to in basketball at the end of games when a player without many fools starts fooling a lot "because they can." Whether you agree with it or not, the MSHSL has said they don't like this and wants the infractions to stop.

This wasn't the hasty decision so many are making it out to be. The night of the tragic injury this season MSHSL minions didn't meet up and say, "gee guys, injuries can happen in this game, we should make harsher penalties" and it happened. There has been discussion for years (I know it's taken place on here many times), and while this specific injury may have gotten them to put the infraction changes in place sooner than they would've otherwise, it wasn't the beginning of the discussion.

What kind of data is wanted?
The lack of top notch US players around the country?
The number of injuries that happen from illegal hits vs legal hits?
The amount of times a game players break the game rules?

[rudy]

Quite simply, reveal something other than emotion and the desire to feel good about "doing something" that led to the most significant changes in Minnesota high school hockey in recent years.

What were the facts and what was it about them that prompted this abrupt sea change?

Did anybody do any emperical homework, share that information and weigh what the potential consequences might be?

These revised penalty consequences would be more widely received if those who rushed them through could show that they had something more than anecdotal evidence to support them.

And that reminds me, i never did get anyone -- after several days and reminders on this board -- to explain to me why boys hockey, for the sake of safety, shouldn't have the same no-checking rules as girls hockey. afterall, i'm still seeing checking-related injuries in the boys game that could be prevented if the girls rules about body contact were adopted.

[HShockeywatcher]

Something revealed: The desire to play the game more by the rules and create a [hopefully] real deterrent to players breaking rules that have the most potential for injury.

The fact is that the game isn't being called by the rules. The change was prompted by rules that aren't being called resulting in injuries.

Not sure what you mean by homework. The word empirical simply means to use observations. I have a feeling that at least one of those who were involved in this decision have seen a hockey game before. Maybe more than one even.

Really not sure what type of "evidence" you are looking for. When the correct calls are not made in the first place, this research is most likely hard to do. Do you want to compare the injuries in games where penalties have happened to those where there were not penalties?

Nothing [that I've read] in this thread is about changing the game of hockey. I don't know my hockey history, maybe it's a fluid document, but I doubt it for the most part. The intent is on having the game played by the rules. If this were happening already, there would be no discussion.

Why would we take legal checking out of the game? The very nature of hockey is a very physical game. There is very little legal checking (checking the guy with the puck to gain an advantage) that results in serious injury.

[rudy]

Ok, forget the word "homework." what facts were gathered ahead of this swift and substantial change by a handful? If i knew what they were, i wouldn't have to ask to have them revealed. of course, they won't be revealed. Why? because they don't exist.

Now, as for the "nature of hockey," are you now saying that girls don't play the game as it was intended? are you saying that no-checking is good enough for girls but not for boys? are you saying there are injuries that must be tolerated for the sake of the "nature of the game"?

there are any number of physical plays in the girls game that are allowed short of what is clearly checking. why isn't that good enough for boys for the sake of safety?

whose son are you willing to toss into the flames of "the nature of hockey" and sacrifice because you don't want boys lowered to the level of the game that girls are compelled to play?

[HShockeywatcher]

What evidence do you need to see to be convinced that players not checking other players from behind [illegally I might add] would be safer? Do a google search of the long term affects of concussions/head injury in sports; there is plenty of data out there. If you haven't read it, that is your choice, but it is out there.

Why can't girls make legal checks that boys can? I have no idea. I know girls who've played both hockey and lacrosse who think it's ridiculous, as do I. The rules of the game were changed for them, for some reason.

You seem to not be reading what I am saying. The injuries from 100% legal hits are few and far between. And yes, injuries happen, in all sports. It's the nature of them. Preventing the ones that are coming as a result of playing outside the rules should be strong concern, as it is for many.

If by "sacrifice," you mean "allow to get legally checked," then I am willing to "sacrifice" the son of any parent of a hockey player.

Right now we are sacrificing our sons [and daughters I assume] to defending playing the game not by the rules. And the result is all around worse hockey. If you don't want to play by the rules, that is fine with me, just find a different game to play.

You wouldn't like for a player to pick up a puck and be awarded a goal for the same reason I don't want any player to be checked from behind. For some reason one of those behaviors is happening all around MN on a regular basis and many are defending it. The only real issue here [to me anyway] is playing the game by the rules. Period, end of story.

[rudy]

The whole discussion is about rules and what they should and shouldn't be. And in the current climate of boys hockey, the discussion is overhwelmingly dominated by what the rules should be to address this paramount concern of the day -- safety above all else.

There are countless instances when something legal in a sport was deemed too dangerous to continue. many a sport with physical contact at the core of "its nature" has adjusted.

Hockey -- Not wearing a helmet was made no longer "legal."
Football -- Head slaps were made no longer "legal."
Boxing -- 15-round bouts were made no longer "legal."

Just because something is legal now doesn't de facto make it safe.

Again, there is no logical reason that boys should not play by the same checking rules as girls -- other than some notion that the "very nature of the game" (for boys) is somehow spoiled.

And it's not just the girls game that you are sullying by saying that it doesn't measure up to some intangible concept of what the "very nature of the game" should be. You can throw in many men's leagues, and the Xcel League for those who don't play for their school.

What makes the "very nature of the game" so sacred for boys high school hockey that it is more pure, while other levels are mere stepchildren to be patted on the head and adored with an "aw, that's such a cute game you're playing. It looks something like the way hockey should be played."


If legal checking is so safe, as you contend, then let's allow every level of the game -- and gender -- to employ that same safe practice.

yeah, right.

[SnowedIn]

The whole discussion is about rules and what they should and shouldn't be. And in the current climate of boys hockey, the discussion is overhwelmingly dominated by what the rules should be to address this paramount concern of the day -- safety above all else.

There are countless instances when something legal in a sport was deemed too dangerous to continue. many a sport with physical contact at the core of "its nature" has adjusted.

Hockey -- Not wearing a helmet was made no longer "legal."
Football -- Head slaps were made no longer "legal."
Boxing -- 15-round bouts were made no longer "legal."

Just because something is legal now doesn't de facto make it safe.

Again, there is no logical reason that boys should not play by the same checking rules as girls -- other than some notion that the "very nature of the game" (for boys) is somehow spoiled.

And it's not just the girls game that you are sullying by saying that it doesn't measure up to some intangible concept of what the "very nature of the game" should be. You can throw in many men's leagues, and the Xcel League for those who don't play for their school.

What makes the "very nature of the game" so sacred for boys high school hockey that it is more pure, while other levels are mere stepchildren to be patted on the head and adored with an "aw, that's such a cute game you're playing. It looks something like the way hockey should be played."


If legal checking is so safe, as you contend, then let's allow every level of the game -- and gender -- to employ that same safe practice.

yeah, right.

On a scale of 1-10 legal checking is safe at let's say a 9. When coaches have on-going effective checking instruction for how to take a hit and give a hit and focus on puck separation, checking is safe. THE ONLY ISSUE WITH LEGAL CHECKS is that many/(maybe most?) coaches do a very poor job of checking instruction. They don't do enough situational checking instruction. They don't do enough repetitions and watch every kid and improve their skill. They don't focus on puck separation. One clinic a season just doesn't cut it.

On a scale of 1-10 illegal checks are safe at let's say a 1 or 2. They have always been dangerous and will continue to be dangerous. No argument from anyone on this. THE ONLY ISSUES surrounding illegal checks is inconsistent calls by refs and lack of consequences for players and coaches. If a player does not get injured, a call may not be made or a misconduct may have not been assessed. Prior to the new rules 2:00 minutes was not a significant consequence to change the behavior of the player or the coach in stopping these penalties. Even if that player got a 2 and 10, the coach only has a minor to kill. He can tolerate that and its not a game changer. The new rules provide much heavier dissincentives and are game changers. Now its up to the refs to make the right calls and force players and coaches to change their behaviors.

Sports do come with injuries - both contact and non contact sports. It's up to the coaches and refs to prepare the athletes to play the game as safe and effectively as possible. And it is up to the player and parents to pick the sport they have the desire and tolerance for.

Football would be a much safer sport if you took out hitting and tackling. Why not blocking and two hand touch? Lacrosse would be safer if you took out body and stick checking? What not take out hitting in Rugby and make it a pure running and passing sport? How about eliminating any and all body contact or sweep checks from soccer which has one of the highest injury rates, including concussions, in youth sports?

[defense]

Quite simply, reveal something other than emotion and the desire to feel good about "doing something" that led to the most significant changes in Minnesota high school hockey in recent years.

What were the facts and what was it about them that prompted this abrupt sea change?

Did anybody do any emperical homework, share that information and weigh what the potential consequences might be?

These revised penalty consequences would be more widely received if those who rushed them through could show that they had something more than anecdotal evidence to support them.

And that reminds me, i never did get anyone -- after several days and reminders on this board -- to explain to me why boys hockey, for the sake of safety, shouldn't have the same no-checking rules as girls hockey. afterall, i'm still seeing checking-related injuries in the boys game that could be prevented if the girls rules about body contact were adopted.

I believe the point is being missed: They did not change any rules, only the penalties to the rules that already existed. There is no need for data to support what they did, boarding is dangerous and there is no need for it, we all know about the contact to the head(you gotta be under a rock not to know where that came from, there is data to support it), and checking from behind is horribly dangerous.
Quite simply, they made two automatic 5 minute majors on one infraction that may be incidental and one that generally is not incidental if you know what you are doing(boarding). They also changed a former 10 and 2 to an automatic 5....big deal?? hardly.
The players are bigger and stronger. The equipment is better. All of this leads to more reckless play. What's wrong with a little accountability?
I witnessed a forward flat out drive the net and put the goalie on his back. Everyone in the rink heard the helmets hit. The forward had ample time to slow down etc... he got a two minute minor. The refs seem to be making a judgement.

[HShockeywatcher]

If legal checking is so safe, as you contend, then let's allow every level of the game -- and gender -- to employ that same safe practice.

yeah, right.

The biggest issue with this right now that even at the high level of high school the rules of the game aren't enforced as written. That being said, in theory, I have no issue with this. The sooner kids are introduced to legal checking, the better they will be at it as they get older.

Personally, I sense most likely [speculation only] that it is not:
1. Wanting to concentrate more on skating skills when younger. Varying difference in skating ability.
2. Varying difference in physical maturity.

What you keep passing over in each of your responses is that the rules of play on the ice have no changed at all. The ONLY thing that has changed is an emphasis on calling the game as written.

This isn't my opinion. It is a fact:

I believe the point is being missed: They did not change any rules, only the penalties to the rules that already existed. There is no need for data to support what they did, boarding is dangerous and there is no need for it, we all know about the contact to the head(you gotta be under a rock not to know where that came from, there is data to support it), and checking from behind is horribly dangerous.

As I said, the change is an attempt to be a deterrent:

On a scale of 1-10 illegal checks are safe at let's say a 1 or 2. They have always been dangerous and will continue to be dangerous. No argument from anyone on this. THE ONLY ISSUES surrounding illegal checks is inconsistent calls by refs and lack of consequences for players and coaches. If a player does not get injured, a call may not be made or a misconduct may have not been assessed. Prior to the new rules 2:00 minutes was not a significant consequence to change the behavior of the player or the coach in stopping these penalties. Even if that player got a 2 and 10, the coach only has a minor to kill. He can tolerate that and its not a game changer. The new rules provide much heavier dissincentives and are game changers. Now its up to the refs to make the right calls and force players and coaches to change their behaviors.

As I've been saying since the "change" occurred, the only players who need to worry about the "changes" are those who are breaking the rules of the game. Don't break the rules, you don't go to the box, that hasn't changed.

[rudy]

Quite simply, reveal something other than emotion and the desire to feel good about "doing something" that led to the most significant changes in Minnesota high school hockey in recent years.

What were the facts and what was it about them that prompted this abrupt sea change?

Did anybody do any emperical homework, share that information and weigh what the potential consequences might be?

These revised penalty consequences would be more widely received if those who rushed them through could show that they had something more than anecdotal evidence to support them.

And that reminds me, i never did get anyone -- after several days and reminders on this board -- to explain to me why boys hockey, for the sake of safety, shouldn't have the same no-checking rules as girls hockey. afterall, i'm still seeing checking-related injuries in the boys game that could be prevented if the girls rules about body contact were adopted.

I believe the point is being missed: They did not change any rules, only the penalties to the rules that already existed. There is no need for data to support what they did, boarding is dangerous and there is no need for it, we all know about the contact to the head(you gotta be under a rock not to know where that came from, there is data to support it), and checking from behind is horribly dangerous.
Quite simply, they made two automatic 5 minute majors on one infraction that may be incidental and one that generally is not incidental if you know what you are doing(boarding). They also changed a former 10 and 2 to an automatic 5....big deal?? hardly.
The players are bigger and stronger. The equipment is better. All of this leads to more reckless play. What's wrong with a little accountability?
I witnessed a forward flat out drive the net and put the goalie on his back. Everyone in the rink heard the helmets hit. The forward had ample time to slow down etc... he got a two minute minor. The refs seem to be making a judgement.

I agree, they did not change the rules. they changed the consequences for certain penalties.

And since the rules did not change, what really only needed to change was enforcement of CFB, boarding and head contact. why not start there and see whether that would satisfy the need for greater safety? my guess is that would mean admitting that a group of people weren't doing their jobs, including those who supervise that group. some leaders don't have that kind of courage.

this is not an argument for taking away penalties for CFB, boarding and head contact. This is an argument for explaining in factual terms what led people in positions of power to declare that increased consequences would "fix" whatever was suddenly found to be wrong with boys HS hockey.

I will keep asking for those facts until they are presented. of course, there is no research to present, so i might as well quit now.

Still, I want to know why the boys are allowed to play a less safe game than the girls? Those who want to make the game as safe as possible have no defense for putting boys in harm's way to a greater degree than girls, other than this intangible known as the "very nature of the game."

[defense]

Quite simply: A 5 minute major penalty is quite a bit more of a penalty than a 2 minute minor. Simple. Yes a check from behind in the past may have led to a person having to sit out for 10 minutes, but the team was only down for a 2 minute minor, now they have a 5 minute major. They also changed two other penalties from 2 minuto 5 minute majors.
I guess common sense tells me that this would mean that they deam these penalties serious enough that they warrant a 5 minute major penalty. I do not think that they were trying to fix the entire thing by upping the penalty, they were making the players that committed the infraction more accountable.
Yeah, I totally agree that people have not been doing their jobs correctly, this is obvious watching games.
I do not think that changing the penalties should be the only step taken, it should only be the start. I do not believe that the game should be made totally "safe" but I do believe that these infractions are very avoidable and that each one of them has the high potential of very serious injuries.
I think that it is quite obvious for many reasons why it is not a good idea for adolescent and young women to play full contact sports.

[goldy313]

Just from my experiance....

When the NFHS first added an automatic 10 minute misconduct to all Checking from Behind calls, the number of checking from behind calls initially stayed the same but it did not take long for many of those calls to be changed to boarding or crosschecking and even led to some no calls. Often times the infraction did not merit the 12 minute penalty, I know I did this myself.

I think we're already seeing it in high school where officials after the first few games of calling it tightly are letting more go and are more inclined to call a 2 minute elbow, crosscheck, or interference instead of the mandatory 5 minute call on these marginal or incedental head contacts and boarding calls. I tend to agree with that.

The rules of hockey, and any sport for hat matter are for the most part, black and white, but allow for discretion by the officilas to try and determine intent and severity; in oficiating circles it's called sense of the game. We don't want injuries to happen but we also don't want officials determining the outcome of games, 5 minute power plays for incedental contact have been doing that. Trying to find that balance was tough enough prior to the rule changes, it's become much harder now. Nearly everytime there is check someone wants a 5 minute major for head contact or boarding now, a 2 minute elbow isn't enough.

I talked with a coach last week who mentioned that had the Jablonsky injury happened in Winona, Wadena, Park, or Prairie Center it wouldn't have been the issue it became but because it happened at a high profile school with a high profile coach the rules were changed midstream...a change that benefits BSM and teams with highly skilled players mind you.

[rudy]

I think that it is quite obvious for many reasons why it is not a good idea for adolescent and young women to play full contact sports.

and the same can be said for boys, when they sometimes come up against raging hormones packed into bodies that are 75 to 100 pounds different in weight.

but in reality, i'm not really in favor of boys playing no-check. i just want the proponents of the drastic and emotion- and nonfact-based changes to see that you can't legislate away risk short of playing no-check.

Enforcement was the problem, and it still is. We see refs turning to roughing, x-checking and other calls to avoid majors. what's next? make those infractions majors too? i doubt it.