Heather Horgan

winnings not 4 everyone · Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:30 pm

Eastside-Savor the moment, I will agree with you on this one!! Although MSHSL needs to take a look at this, it goes much deeper. Officiating within girls hockey changes not only by individuals, but geographically as well. The Metro seems to be conservative, North is more liberal, Canadians even more so. Then you have the transition from High School to D-1. If we restrict play at the HS level, then the NCAA needs to become more conservative as well. If we allow what we see in D-1, then hardnose play will be allowed, thus more potential injuries to unsuspecting players. A North American standard needs to be implemented with an emphasis on training womens officials. Somewhat easily achieved by setting the standard and demonstrating in through video. Problem is, you have to many sanctioning bodies that would have to do this. Also, there seems to be no recourse for "bad" officials. As long as they are scheduled, they continue to work games. There should be an evaluation process for them as well not just a written test.

offsides · Post by **offsides** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:27 pm

ralph wrote:#21 for Eden Prairie should be disqualified from taking part in her first game of the spring (if not more) if she plays a spring sport. I realize that she is a senior, but this would be one way to punish her. Checking from behind is inexcuseable. Checking in girls' hockey is very dangerous as the girls are not to taught the skill of taking a check. How she didn't serve a major penalty for that infraction is not only a joke, but it also should be carry a black mark against the officials of the game. It was truly ridiculous!!! There is no defending this act!!! She then went on to run #15 and got away with it. I would like to see the high school league get involved and investigate. Heather had no chance to protect herself. I don't care if she(21) is a good kid or not. That's not the issue. The issue is that she injured another player (Heather, also a very good kid) on a dangerous act. I realize that this is the risk that one takes when they participate in a sport. However, referees need to protect the unprotected player. 5 minutes and a game misconduct should have been the call, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!

Ralph, Ralph, Ralph...

I was going to write a War and Peace length post refuting your post, but what's the use. Your post isn't any where near on the mark and 99.9% of the people out there know it. What % does that leave you in?

chickendance · Post by **chickendance** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:52 pm

NO QUESTIONS ASKED. It was not a check from behind.

I can use caps lock, bold, italics and underline if I need to.

offsides · Post by **offsides** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:16 pm

chickendance wrote:NO QUESTIONS ASKED. It was not a check from behind.

I can use caps lock, bold, italics and underline if I need to.

Amen, brother (sister), amen

ralph · Post by **ralph** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:24 am

Okay, for everyone that hasn't played or coached the game, get a clue. If you don't call it checking from behind, there is a rule that has been around since dirt. The other term that could be used is called BOARDING!!! Boarding can be described as a hit or collision(whatever the heck you want to call it) where the player is near the board but not on the boards. The hit then propels the player into the BOARDS, sending the unprotected player into the boards. Again, a very dangerous act. I don't care if this game was played in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or 00's, it was a MAJOR PENALTY!!!!! Boarding to this degree in any era would be and should be a major penalty. Oh yeah, that's right, I suppose the next thing you will say is that she was faking!!! She was down for nearly 10 MINUTES!!!!! She is a tough kid. THAT'S A MAJOR!!!!!! If I'm only the 1% that's right, so be it!!! What's your hockey background? I've been a part of this game for several decades, been to rules interpretations meetings trying to resolve this issue. So if I'm 1%, so be it, I'm right!!!

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:39 am

ralph wrote:Okay, for everyone that hasn't played or coached the game, get a clue. If you don't call it checking from behind, there is a rule that has been around since dirt. The other term that could be used is called BOARDING!!! Boarding can be described as a hit or collision(whatever the heck you want to call it) where the player is near the board but not on the boards. The hit then propels the player into the BOARDS, sending the unprotected player into the boards. Again, a very dangerous act. I don't care if this game was played in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or 00's, it was a MAJOR PENALTY!!!!! Boarding to this degree in any era would be and should be a major penalty. Oh yeah, that's right, I suppose the next thing you will say is that she was faking!!! She was down for nearly 10 MINUTES!!!!! She is a tough kid. THAT'S A MAJOR!!!!!! If I'm only the 1% that's right, so be it!!! What's your hockey background? I've been a part of this game for several decades, been to rules interpretations meetings trying to resolve this issue. So if I'm 1%, so be it, I'm right!!!

Ralph, No one is disputing that she was bumped into and and yes the bump was from behind and to the side , but after watching the replay it did not appear to be intentional, I am not a EP Fan of any sorts. I am just telling you what I saw
It appeard both were heading for the board for the puck the GRG girl leaned forward and slowed down and the EP girl was right behind her and bumped her from the side rear. It was not a follow through hit it was an unfortunate bump. I do know hockey, I have played and coached and now am watching and enjoying the game.
It is a shame that she got hurt but it to me looked like an unfortunate accident and nothing more.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:23 am

ralph wrote:Okay, for everyone that hasn't played or coached the game, get a clue. If you don't call it checking from behind, there is a rule that has been around since dirt. The other term that could be used is called BOARDING!!! Boarding can be described as a hit or collision(whatever the heck you want to call it) where the player is near the board but not on the boards. The hit then propels the player into the BOARDS, sending the unprotected player into the boards. Again, a very dangerous act. I don't care if this game was played in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or 00's, it was a MAJOR PENALTY!!!!! Boarding to this degree in any era would be and should be a major penalty. Oh yeah, that's right, I suppose the next thing you will say is that she was faking!!! She was down for nearly 10 MINUTES!!!!! She is a tough kid. THAT'S A MAJOR!!!!!! If I'm only the 1% that's right, so be it!!! What's your hockey background? I've been a part of this game for several decades, been to rules interpretations meetings trying to resolve this issue. So if I'm 1%, so be it, I'm right!!!

I wish I would have recorded this game as I was watching it. When I saw it live it sure looked to me right away like it was either checking from behind, or at least a major boarding call. I sure didn't see it as a mere "bump" as some have described it here.

Does it matter if it may have been unintentional? Lots of other infractions are "unintentional" too, yet they are called or should be called. It's what actually happens, not the player's intent, that determines whether or not it's a penalty.

Until I see a good replay, I guess I'm in the 1% with ralph.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:44 am

No question boarding is a MAJOR. No question that it should be a MAJOR if it was intentional or not. Seriously how many checking from behind penalties are intentional? I played the game, I received a checking from behind, by no means was it intentional. that is not the point.

the point is could this hit be viewed as boarding or checking from behind, regardless of whether or not it was intentional, that is so besides the point. i am not saying #21 from EP is a thug or am i on here trashing her name.

The facts are the same #21 hit another girl from GRG who had to leave the game. By calling that first hit a MAJOR i would bet anything the second player from GRG does not get injured.

If there was body contact it should have been a major, if #21 stick was the cause of the head first penalty in to the boards, it should not.

Regardless, this sheds some light on a major issue as WN4E states.

Eastside-Savor the moment, I will agree with you on this one!! Although MSHSL needs to take a look at this, it goes much deeper. Officiating within girls hockey changes not only by individuals, but geographically as well. The Metro seems to be conservative, North is more liberal, Canadians even more so. Then you have the transition from High School to D-1. If we restrict play at the HS level, then the NCAA needs to become more conservative as well. If we allow what we see in D-1, then hardnose play will be allowed, thus more potential injuries to unsuspecting players. A North American standard needs to be implemented with an emphasis on training womens officials. Somewhat easily achieved by setting the standard and demonstrating in through video. Problem is, you have to many sanctioning bodies that would have to do this. Also, there seems to be no recourse for "bad" officials. As long as they are scheduled, they continue to work games. There should be an evaluation process for them as well not just a written test.

This is exactly the problem, lets correct this issue and get clarity on MSHSL rules for girls hockey across the state.

winnings not 4 everyone · Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:06 pm

We can dispute this on message boards all day long. Anyone with real concerns or have a passionate position, give David Stead, MSHSL director an email at dstead@mshsl.org Change doesn't happen on its on. In 8 months, the pucks will be dropped again!

ralph · Post by **ralph** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:32 pm

Hey winning, getting a little uncomfortable? Why try to shut people down? Let's just get past this? That's what some of these message boards are for, to debate issues. Yes we all see things in different ways, but to say hockey starts in 8 months seems a little defensive. I will be contacting the high school league regarding this matter. I know I'm right and that is the way it is. I've received 2 major penalties in my life and both were UNINTENTIONAL. Did I deserve them? Yes, I probably did. I highsticked a goalie on a puck that had flown up in the air and hit him in the mask. I was trying to score by hitting the puck, not the goalie in the head. He was not injured, but the call was made to protect the unprotected player. On the other, I was racing for the puck and pushed the defender near the boards before he fell hard into the boards. Luckily for him he just lost his breath. Again, the call was made to protect the unprotected player. I argued but was definitely wrong. Am I a bad person for that? You might think so by now, but I'm really not. I don't want #21's head on a platter. She just walked free from doing the same thing. And then was allowed to do it again!!!

winnings not 4 everyone · Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:09 pm

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is when I drink to much and RALPH. If you think that stating there are 8 months to get the wheels of change moving defensive, I'm not sure what you mean. Two points I'm trying to make. Unless you've been an official, it is hard to critique every call or non-call that is made. It is fastpaced and snap decisions do and sometimes don't get made. How many times have you heard the phrase "just let them play". How we train and evaluate officials is they dilemna. Because someone has done it for years, they are more qualified? Not so sure. How well they do there job should be the measure but no criteria exists for this. I do know for certain, that there are "homers", that some call everything, and that some "let them play" (particularly in playoff situations). The "let them play" attitude hurts the team that may not be as aggressive (as shown by their penalty minutes). Unfortunately, D-1 scouts like the aggressiveness as do many players and fans. Without a well trained "standard" for girls hockey, these unfortunate incidents will always be a part of the game until the officiating part of the game becomes more governed.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:28 pm

I think Winnings was just making the point we have 8 months to demand change. There should be a training session on womens hockey on top of high school hockey. I plan on emailing my concerns, thanks for the link!

I think alot of coaches know what will be called and what will not be called, they demand physical play, which is fine. But when some Refs and geographical areas of the state have different standards this may cause more harm than if checking was allowed. At least if checking is allowed the player will know if they are going to be knocked down when their head is down.

As far as the call, officials are human. However there were 3 of them that night and i am sure at least one of them saw it as the puck was in the area, get together and discuss it and than make the changes necessary. They may have done this they may have not.

But to say a player does not deserve a Major because it was not intentional is one of the silliest things i have heard....

ralph · Post by **ralph** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Who cares about D-1 scouts? Is this game for them or is it for the experience of all athletes? Last time I checked it was and should be for all athletes eligible for the extra-curricular event. Actually have reffed too. I love hockey as much as you do. Ref blew the call that's all, by a MILE!!! All kinds of my family members and me have played this sport from mites to peewees to bantams to high school to college and then professionally. Some made it all of the way, some were done in high school. Who cares? All members will tell you that they didn't play for any scout. They played for their particular team. The rest takes care of itself in the end. Either you are good enough to play after high school or you are not. As a coach I cared as much about the non-college players as I did about the D-1 players (coached quite a few) I love aggressive players too. Nothing wrong with that as long as they play within the framework of the rules. #21 simply did not that's all. Case closed. MSHSL needs to take a closer look at this problem like they did with boys' hockey back in the 90's.

ralph · Post by **ralph** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:39 pm

Eastside, Finally someone in here gets it!!! Your point is well taken again.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:25 pm

All I can say is that I'm quite certain that #21 had no intent to injure anyone. But, still, the play did result in an injury. It may seem like this is all irrelevant, but it is important I believe.

Refs have a tough job, and so much is called based on intent in girls hockey. Refs must not have seen intent to injure in the play, nor any penalty at all. The play resulted in an injury however. So, you make the call... (or none at all?). Do you automatically call a penalty or intent to injure major/misconduct penalty as a result of an injury? That too, I think, would be wrong.

Educating refs won't teach them how to read intent much better I don't believe. (like trying to teach them to read minds almost...) I may be wrong, but this - to me - is an instinct (reading intent) more than a skill, and even some of the best refs may struggle with reading this unless a player ran from half way across the rink and ran someone or was baseball like swinging a stick at another player, etc. Incidentally bumping into someone with your body and the result being an injury is tough to call a penalty on I believe - especially in the girls game where the blurring of checking vs appropriate body contact has resulted in much of what we're talking about now...

Which leads me to another question... should we allow checking in girls hockey then so that the girls learn how to handle this properly? I don't know, as that would change the game a lot, and probably change the impact of the smaller players in the game, etc. - even if they are highly skilled...

offsides · Post by **offsides** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:37 pm

You guys are making this way more complicated. First, of course unintentional acts can be penalties. That's a no brainer and doesn't need any debate. Keep making it a major point in your arguments.

Second, before a checking from behind or a boarding call can be made, there must be a check. There's body contact all over the ice that aren't checks. The fact of the matter that in this case two players were going for the puck and their bodies touched. It wasn't even a check, let alone a checking from behind or a boarding. In fact, #21 slowed down -- now that's how you deliver a vicious, punishing hit!

Ralph Malph, and eastside hockey it's a good thing you both played hockey -- and received major penalties -- that adds a lot to your argument. Especially you RALPH. We're happy your grandma and uncle and aunt made it to the pros. That's impressive! As for me, I grew up in Jamaica, mon -- I never saw a hockey game until last week and have it dialed in better than you guys.

Go back and read gopherfanarm's post. He broke the play down frame-by-frame. He has no horse in the race and is about as credible a poster as this and other hockey forums have ever seen. Karyn Bye, the color commentator called it incidental contact. Give me a break.

boblee · Post by **boblee** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:41 pm

I have tried to be quiet in this thread, but I will now speak my mind. I am a huge Grand Rapids/Greenway Lightning fan. Probably the biggest. I would have loved to see a 5 minute power play, but it wasn't warranted. #21 did not hit #2 directly in the back and actually both of them were moving. Not only was it not intent to injure, it was not a check from behind. Yes, it was a bad break and yes it looked terrible and yes I was worried, but not a check from behind. Only a 5-minute boarding penalty could have been given and I don't even know if those exist anymore. I haven't spoken with Heather or he family, but I don't think they thought it was a cheap shot. I talked to a few Lightning girls and a coach about it and no one mentioned it being cheap or even asked for a 5-minute. If you notice, GRG head coach Chris Granley didn't even question the two-minute call. It's great to hear that Heather should be ok, let's let this topic die and let it be known that is was not a cheap shot and should not have been a 5-minute major. Let's give the ref some credit for making the right call. It seems like we can never do that.

gopher9 · Post by **gopher9** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:00 pm

Ralphy boy, thats right you sound like alittle kid that didn't get his way! I will gaurantee you my back ground on hockey is as extensive as yours but thats not the point here. I will agree with you on some of your points but I just got through watching the play over and over and if you watch it again you will see Horgans head is down looking at the puck and skating harder than #21 to the puck with all of her momentum shifting forward towards the boards, they both were going for the puck and as incidental contact was made (from the side not from behind) Horgans skate caught which sent her forward into the boards head first, very unfortunate. I hope she makes a full recovery!! After whatching the game the officials missed alot of calls on both teams! Officiating mistakes are going to happen! It happens at every level not everybody is perfect. By no means should that have been a Major penalty!!!!!

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:30 pm

It is not so much the hit that or lack of the hit, as it can be judged by the eye of the beholder. what bothers me, and what i have been stating, or trying to state, is that officiating for girls hockey is all over the place. Does anyone want to disagree with this statement? all my posts talk about is that there needs to be a clearer understanding for officials about girls hockey and more in depth training.

Like GHShockeyfan said, would allowing checking be more beneficial? i never thought i would ever say that checking would benefit the game but this incident changed my mind, or at least opened my mind. If a girl knows there is going to be checking, or a physicality to the game they will prepare themselves differently, protect themselves, be more aware. I have seen girls with their head down get DRILLED and hurt and no penalty (incidental contact) if there was checking that girl does not have her head down and does not end up injured. (this is not the horgan incident)

as far as stating that ralph and i played the game (as i am sure almost everyone here has) the point was the unintentional hits or acts merit MAJORS as if they were intentional. No difference what so ever. How about reading before making judgements offsides.

Talk to a ref, body contact near the boards merits a penalty if from behind or slightly behind (you see the numbers you dont make body contact), whether it is a major or minor penalty is decided on the amont of contact.

What i want is for the MSHSL to look into girls hockey thoroughly as i feel there needs to be "extra" training for officials for girls hockey and it needs to be throughout the STATE, not sections. If girls know there is checking at least they can prepare themselves for it. When checking is not allowed i think some girls get into a false comfort zone and can get "popped" at any moment whereas they would not have this false comfort with checking allowed.

I hope Horgan makes a full recovery and plans on playing hockey in the future as she is a great player who i think is over looked. freak incident indeed.

gopher9 · Post by **gopher9** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:50 pm

eastsidehockey wrote:It is not so much the hit that or lack of the hit, as it can be judged by the eye of the beholder. what bothers me, and what i have been stating, or trying to state, is that officiating for girls hockey is all over the place. Does anyone want to disagree with this statement? all my posts talk about is that there needs to be a clearer understanding for officials about girls hockey and more in depth training.

Like GHShockeyfan said, would allowing checking be more beneficial? i never thought i would ever say that checking would benefit the game but this incident changed my mind, or at least opened my mind. If a girl knows there is going to be checking, or a physicality to the game they will prepare themselves differently, protect themselves, be more aware. I have seen girls with their head down get DRILLED and hurt and no penalty (incidental contact) if there was checking that girl does not have her head down and does not end up injured. (this is not the horgan incident)

as far as stating that ralph and i played the game (as i am sure almost everyone here has) the point was the unintentional hits or acts merit MAJORS as if they were intentional. No difference what so ever. How about reading before making judgements offsides.

Talk to a ref, body contact near the boards merits a penalty if from behind or slightly behind (you see the numbers you dont make body contact), whether it is a major or minor penalty is decided on the amont of contact.

What i want is for the MSHSL to look into girls hockey thoroughly as i feel there needs to be "extra" training for officials for girls hockey and it needs to be throughout the STATE, not sections. If girls know there is checking at least they can prepare themselves for it. When checking is not allowed i think some girls get into a false comfort zone and can get "popped" at any moment whereas they would not have this false comfort with checking allowed.

I hope Horgan makes a full recovery and plans on playing hockey in the future as she is a great player who i think is over looked. freak incident indeed.

Agreed! Officiating in girls highschool hockey is sooooo inconsitent! Some call everything others dont call a thing. I think part of the problem is that they ref both boys and girls they should have to stick to one or the other. An interesting thing from the state tournament that I noticed was that E.P. first and second games the refs were from northern MN didnt call anything and the championship game they were from the eastern metro and called everything?? Except a 5 min. magor

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:36 pm

Coaches can do their players a huge service by emphasizing to them to always anticipate getting hit - everywhere on the ice. Teach them how to go into the corners correctly. I would teach them how to take a check just like the boys are taught (or at least how they are supposed to be taught). It's just like driving through an intersection; never assume the other car is going to stop. I think this would prevent a lot of injuries. Also, if one of your players goes into the corner or along the boards in a way that could result in them being injured, she should be read the riot act to get her attention. They must be taught to get close to the boards so they are not caught in that 3-4 foot danger area.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:53 pm

xwildfan wrote:Coaches can do their players a huge service by emphasizing to them to always anticipate getting hit - everywhere on the ice. Teach them how to go into the corners correctly. I would teach them how to take a check just like the boys are taught (or at least how they are supposed to be taught). It's just like driving through an intersection; never assume the other car is going to stop. I think this would prevent a lot of injuries. Also, if one of your players goes into the corner or along the boards in a way that could result in them being injured, she should be read the riot act to get her attention. They must be taught to get close to the boards so they are not caught in that 3-4 foot danger area.

Excellent advice! I hope lots of players and coaches see this.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:57 pm

xwildfan wrote:Coaches can do their players a huge service by emphasizing to them to always anticipate getting hit - everywhere on the ice. Teach them how to go into the corners correctly. I would teach them how to take a check just like the boys are taught (or at least how they are supposed to be taught). It's just like driving through an intersection; never assume the other car is going to stop. I think this would prevent a lot of injuries. Also, if one of your players goes into the corner or along the boards in a way that could result in them being injured, she should be read the riot act to get her attention. They must be taught to get close to the boards so they are not caught in that 3-4 foot danger area.

This is emphasized by USA Hockey in coaches training.

I believe it's also possible a defenseman with the strength and skill of Horgan probably isn't used to getting knocked down too often and may not have expected it, certainly not if in her "blind spot". In playoff games you will often see players go very hard into tight spaces and see big crashes because of the significance of the game and the overall intensity.

She's a great player and I hope she has a speedy recovery.

offsides · Post by **offsides** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:39 am

[quote="eastsidehockey"]as far as stating that ralph and i played the game (as i am sure almost everyone here has) the point was the unintentional hits or acts merit MAJORS as if they were intentional. No difference what so ever. How about reading before making judgements offsides.

eastsidehockey, read the first paragraph of my last post I agreed with that point. Whether any of us played doesn't add much relevance to the point. If it did, then we'd end up discussing levels of play. It only clouds the whole thing.

Quote: It is not so much the hit that or lack of the hit, as it can be judged by the eye of the beholder. what bothers me, and what i have been stating, or trying to state, is that officiating for girls hockey is all over the place. Does anyone want to disagree with this statement? all my posts talk about is that there needs to be a clearer understanding for officials about girls hockey and more in depth training.

I very much agree with that paragraph. The problem I had with you and Ralph was that you adamently and reaptedly stated it should have been a major penalty and implied that because you were involved in majors you should know.

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:47 am

I think the basic problem with the ref situation is that there are now so many games all over the place at so many levels, that there simply are not enough competent referees to handle all the games. Many simply cannot keep up with the pace. And many have no idea what incidental contact is (not referring to the contact in this thread). Not sure what the answer is. I am actually surprised that there are enough refs of any ability to go around, with the abuse they typically get.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Heather Horgan

Heather Horgan

post 10002