Just to emphasize a point being made about refs enforcing the physical play, or lack thereof, I was at a PW game the other night and after the play was stopped (a blocked shot on goal) and 5 feet in front of the ref a kid from "Team A" through a punch that hit the head of a player from "Team B." The ref say it all and simply skated up between the players to break them apart. That was it.
You can teach these kids all you want in practice about proper technique and everything else, but if thid kind of contact (hits to the head or checks from behind where most of the injuries occur) are going to be marginally enforced by the refs, what's the point. That kid should have been immediately ejected from the game, it should have been noted ont eh score sheet that he threw a punch, and then have to deal with the consequences from d6. Big discouragement when the ref skates between them to break it up.
NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:53 pm
- Location: MnMade Rink 2
-
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:50 pm
Posted on the Q & A thread but thought I would post here also:
A link http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10856788 to the video and i strongly suggest everyone should watch it. More contact and "checking" than what i expected and may easier to ref than what I/we think. Could almost look at it as making a stronger emphasis on current rules and removing the "big" hits. I know what everyone is thinking, whats a "big" hit ... I go back to supreme courts response when asked to define porn. "I cant define it, but I know it when I see it". Maybe the "big" hit can be defined as the one you don't want your kid on the receiving end of. Still not sure I like the rule as it could go too far but the definition/explanation in video is better than what I was expecting.
A link http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10856788 to the video and i strongly suggest everyone should watch it. More contact and "checking" than what i expected and may easier to ref than what I/we think. Could almost look at it as making a stronger emphasis on current rules and removing the "big" hits. I know what everyone is thinking, whats a "big" hit ... I go back to supreme courts response when asked to define porn. "I cant define it, but I know it when I see it". Maybe the "big" hit can be defined as the one you don't want your kid on the receiving end of. Still not sure I like the rule as it could go too far but the definition/explanation in video is better than what I was expecting.