HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

rudy wrote:Game Thursday is canceled.

What game?

Wayzata Vs. BSM

Jack's Pledge

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news ... jan-4-2012

goldy313 wrote:

markp wrote:I was @ the Shakopee vs Farmington game and one of the boy's from Shakopee was hit from behind head first into the boards. He was out on the ice for at least 5 minutes. Finally he was taken to the bench where he was throwing up due to an obvious severe concussion. Now the best part, no penalty was called. After the game the Shakopee head coach reviewed the tape and went to the refs dressing room and very calmly( with a few people near that confirmed he wasn't being disrespectful) told them that their one job is to protect the boys on the ice..First the said they didn't see it happen. That's when he told then he just watched the tape and it was obvious they were looking right at the Hit right when it happened. (I watched the tape and you could see them looking right at the hit) After he said that, they promptly told him to get the F out of there dressing room.(which was heard by a few people). Their has to be some type of review committee looking at these and making the refs accountable..

*First the coach had no business in the referee's room, none.
*Second it is not or ever been the referees job to protect the players, their job is to enforce the rules. Any penalty called is after the fact anyhow. Calling a penalty would not have changed the injury in anyway or protected anyone. There are certain rules designed to protect the players but the referees can't. The only way to protect a player for an official would be to assume an illegal action was going to take place and blow the whistle early, obviously that won't happen. All a referee can do is penalize the offending player not protect the offended player.
*Third the angle from the ice is different from the angle of the camera.
*Lastly there is no rule in the MSHSL that allows for a penalty after the game, this isn't the NHL.

All your post did was show a coach that was out of line.

*Second it is not or ever been the referees job to protect the players, their job is to enforce the rules. Any penalty called is after the fact anyhow. Calling a penalty would not have changed the injury in anyway or protected anyone. There are certain rules designed to protect the players but the referees can't. The only way to protect a player for an official would be to assume an illegal action was going to take place and blow the whistle early, obviously that won't happen. All a referee can do is penalize the offending player not protect the offended player."

Are you serious? In any specific on-ice instance, I agree. The ref can't prevent someone from pole-axing a player over the head. What he can do is call a major penalty and report the infraction to whomever is paying him. By proxy, the referee's are there TO PROTECT THE PLAYERS BY ENFORCING THE RULES!. Have you ever coached a youth hockey team? If your answer is yes, and if I had been one of your players, I would sure as heck hope you might take some action after the fact (if I were the one paralyzed on an illegal hit/pole-axe to the head where no penalty was called) to help insure that next Tuesday's game didn't result in another crippling injury to another one of my players (hey, maybe even YOUR son). If that means speaking with the ref's, in the "referee's room", "I think they have every business in the world" being in the "referee's room".

P.S. - I'm sorry you seem to be a ref who is not very good at your job.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (May 4, 2011) — No contact with an opposing player’s head or neck area will be allowed at any time in high school ice hockey, effective with the 2011-12 school year. Any contact of that kind could result in a stand-alone minor or major penalty, or even a disqualification.
This was one of six rules changes approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Ice Hockey Rules Committee at its April 18-19 meeting in Indianapolis. The rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The change to Rule 6-8 was made to heighten awareness of the seriousness of any type of contact to the head, as well as that of any action that might cause a concussion, much like the potential of serious injury caused by checking from behind.

“Removal of language allowing officials discretion in administering penalties from Rule 6-8 regarding contact to the head places additional emphasis on head or neck contact to an opposing player,” said Tom Shafranski, chair of the rules committee and an assistant director of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association. “It is the hope of the committee that this stricter language will further address concussion management, rough play and the overall well-being of a player’s health in high school ice hockey.”

Found this on the NFHS website.
So with that being noted the ref's need to step up and start making these calls and give out majors and game DQ's. I feel we could take it one more step further by, if your team get's a DQ, the player and head coach are gone for the rest of the game and the next one together.

No one wants to see these players hurt with these types of injury's. If we are the State of Hockey then we need to be the State of Hockey Leaders in Protecting our players from being hurt and haven life changing injury's.

rudy wrote:Game Thursday is canceled.

Rescheduled, or canceled outright?

Either way, it's probably a good move.

Just for clarification; when a player is DQed, that is just for that game, correct?

That seems pretty silly to me. If you are losing or winning by a lot, you can take out an opposing player with realistically no penalty if that is really as serious as it gets.

It should be AT LEAST multiple games after. Personally, while extreme, I would think it would be awesome to get to the point where a check from behind has a mandatory MSHSL ban for some length of time, maybe as long as a year. What can [and sometimes does] happen to kids from these illegal hits is sickening.

Minnesota doesn't use a dq.
Only game misconducts.

HShockeywatcher wrote:Just for clarification; when a player is DQed, that is just for that game, correct?

That seems pretty silly to me. If you are losing or winning by a lot, you can take out an opposing player with realistically no penalty if that is really as serious as it gets.

It should be AT LEAST multiple games after. Personally, while extreme, I would think it would be awesome to get to the point where a check from behind has a mandatory MSHSL ban for some length of time, maybe as long as a year. What can [and sometimes does] happen to kids from these illegal hits is sickening.

Game situation tonight. Opposing forward going into offensive corner beats our D man to puck. His back is towards our player, he jukes one way, peels off to the other way. Our D man peels the opposite way of the juke, opposing forward very good skater comes directly back into our D man's line. Our D man not the most skilled skater has nowhere to go but straight, attempts to pull up but too close to the boards. Checking from behind. 2 and 10. Absolutely the right call, but, no intent and not enough skating skill to avoid the collision. Is this the players's fault? The coaches fault? Fact is it probably happens more than anyone wants to admit. I guess my point is there really is no way to regulate a situation like this. I do believe that this is more common than most people believe. I also believe when you have less skilled players, this will happen more often. No intent, not malicious, what is the answer?

Neumann....I get your anger but it is misguided. I wasn't at the game and have no knowledge other than the second hand accounts relayed here. From what's been said it was a judgement call not an intrepretation call....maybe it was bad judgement but that doesn't change anything.

I don't have a current NFHS hockey rulebook but from USA Hockey:
502A: "the role of the official is to enforce the rules of the game....The referee may not change his decision, or that of any other official, after the resumption of play following the rendering of the original decision."

This is from Hockey Canada, the rule in the USHL and MSHSL were similar when I officiated: " No person except the President of the branch or league or their representitive shall be allowed to enter the official's dressing room. For any infraction of this rule the matter shall be reported by the referee to the President of the branch for further action."

This instance was specific You can't blame the referee for what happened and by the same token you can't penalize the player after the fact. You can't protect the players from a specific occurance, Assuming you're right and it was a horrible call, you still can't go into the officials room. I hope the kid is alright and I wish incidents like what happened never happened, the fact is they do no matter how unfortunate and how much everyone involved wishes they didn't.

Thanks for telling me I am not good at my job, maybe because in the officiating world rules trump emotion. You can't officiate based on emotion, just because someone is hurt doesn't mean there was an infraction. I wasn't there in this case and don't pretend to know what happened. But I do know you can't call what you didn't see no matter the horrific outcome.

edgeless2 wrote:Game situation tonight. Opposing forward going into offensive corner beats our D man to puck. His back is towards our player, he jukes one way, peels off to the other way. Our D man peels the opposite way of the juke, opposing forward very good skater comes directly back into our D man's line. Our D man not the most skilled skater has nowhere to go but straight, attempts to pull up but too close to the boards. Checking from behind. 2 and 10. Absolutely the right call, but, no intent and not enough skating skill to avoid the collision. Is this the players's fault? The coaches fault? Fact is it probably happens more than anyone wants to admit. I guess my point is there really is no way to regulate a situation like this. I do believe that this is more common than most people believe. I also believe when you have less skilled players, this will happen more often. No intent, not malicious, what is the answer?

That is why it is so tough. I've seen people get checked from behind and thought it was nasty. I've also seen people get checked from behind and it was completely unavoidable. Each situation is slightly different. A blanket statement like, "If you do this you're an idiot," doesn't make much sense to me. I think the answer, if the situation was exactly as you described it, is how the refs called it. The 2 and 10 should be enough. We may not want to admit it but these instances are going to happen purely by accident sometimes. It is up to the player to be in control of themselves on the ice but I don't think multiple game suspensions for an accidental hit without intent are the answer.

Another element that has not been brought up yet is that it would be extremely difficult to hand out suspensions, either for the player or the coach as some would like to see. Most hockey arenas are not set up in a way that would allow for enough quality camera angles to get a good picture of the hit in question. I know personally, I won't say a hit is dirty or not unless I actually saw it. I don't think it would be fair to have a MSHSL official try to do the same thing. These aren't college or NHL arenas.

I do believe it is the responsibility of all who are involved in game to minimize this type of horrific injury as much as possible. From class room education, to proper technique, safety precautions, rule enforcement, game play and coaching style.

Defensive Zone wrote:I do believe it is the responsibility of all who are involved in game to minimize this type of horrific injury as much as possible. From class room education, to proper technique, safety precautions, rule enforcement, game play and coaching style.

Simply stated but so true!

goldy313 wrote:maybe because in the officiating world rules trump emotion.

This is the problem. In my 40+ years on Earth, not one referee has officiated a game based solely on the rules. If the refs made the correct calls based on the rules, there would be hardly any of these types of hits happening.

If you got a speeding ticket every time you went 1mph over the limit, you would never speed again.
If you had a vacation day taken away every time you were one minute late to work, you would never be late again.
If your kids were grounded every time they were one minute late for curfew, they would never be late again.

You get what you tolerate.

By calling a check from behind a 'cross check', or 'boarding', you are tolerating checking from behind and that will continue to happen. Why would they stop?

You can tell a kid a million times not to do something, but until they experience a negative consequence, they will continue to do it.

Now, I don't think in my lifetime this problem will ever go away.
When you have so many different people involved, there will always be different interpretations of every word in the rule book. There will be people that have the 'Let them play' attitude. there will be people that don't want any contact at all. There has to some middle ground, and it starts will calling the game by the actual rules.

Its obvious by the tenor of almost every post that we all wish this type of tragic injury could be avoided. Unfortunately while we can take steps to minimize how often it occurs, hockey by its very nature, is a violent and sometimes dangerous sport. The game itself has evolved over the last 30 years and the speed and size of even high school kids is a far cry from the game us old timers experienced. One of the first and most publicized examples is when BU forward Travis Roy was paralyzed on his first college shift. For those that remember he wasn't even checked but accidentally stumbled at full speed head first into the boards. It pains me to admit it, but as a hockey parents we have to accept the risk involved and thank are lucky stars its not our son or daughter who becomes a statistic. My deepest sympathy goes out to Jack and his family along with all the kids in every sport who have been left disabled playing the game they love. In times like this we all search for answers when the truth is we simply can't protect are children from all potentially dangerous activities. We hand over the keys to an automobile at age 16 knowing full well the risk at hand. Contact sports are much the same, we all know the risks but tend to put them out of mind until something like this happens.

D6Rocks wrote:

goldy313 wrote:maybe because in the officiating world rules trump emotion.

This is the problem. In my 40+ years on Earth, not one referee has officiated a game based solely on the rules. If the refs made the correct calls based on the rules, there would be hardly any of these types of hits happening.

If you got a speeding ticket every time you went 1mph over the limit, you would never speed again.
If you had a vacation day taken away every time you were one minute late to work, you would never be late again.
If your kids were grounded every time they were one minute late for curfew, they would never be late again.

You get what you tolerate.

By calling a check from behind a 'cross check', or 'boarding', you are tolerating checking from behind and that will continue to happen. Why would they stop?

You can tell a kid a million times not to do something, but until they experience a negative consequence, they will continue to do it.

Now, I don't think in my lifetime this problem will ever go away.
When you have so many different people involved, there will always be different interpretations of every word in the rule book. There will be people that have the 'Let them play' attitude. there will be people that don't want any contact at all. There has to some middle ground, and it starts will calling the game by the actual rules.

I agree with you. But lets be honest. In the NHL almost every high sticking call is made, but we still have high sticking occurring. Tripping is another penalty that gets called a high percentage of the time. Has it eliminated the penalty from the game or even reduced it? I'm not so sure. My point is the nature and speed of the game makes it impossible to remove horrific injuries from the game.

I have a son who plays high school hockey, and I’m very good friends with a few high school and youth coaches. This is the way I see it. Whats the purpose of checking? I think the ‘real’ purpose of checking to knock a player off the puck. If that’s correct, then there is never any reason to ‘finish the check’. By this I mean … the player has released his shot, the skater is moving towards him but could easily pull up or go around him, but ‘every’ coach expects him to ‘finish his check’ and hit the guy. Why? To intimidate I think. I’d like to see this stopped. It really is gratuitous violence.
My second beef is with the kid who is a ‘hard hitter’. The check is legal and he absolutely hammers kids. And everyone cheers (coaches love these kids). There is a huge potential for injury there and it is completely unnecessary as far as ‘knocking the player off the puck’. Its allowed because people perceive that it is exciting (and coaches love the intimidation factor). I’m fortunate in that my son is a big kid, usually the biggest kid on the ice and hard to knock down so his chances are good for not being injured. If he was a smaller kid I would consider encouraging him to quit. As long as checking as we know it is left in the game it will continue to be seen (by non-hockey people) as a brutal sport played by thugs, and we will continue to put our kids at risk for the sake of making the game ‘exciting’ to watch.

Django wrote:I have a son who plays high school hockey, and I’m very good friends with a few high school and youth coaches. This is the way I see it. Whats the purpose of checking? I think the ‘real’ purpose of checking to knock a player off the puck. If that’s correct, then there is never any reason to ‘finish the check’. By this I mean … the player has released his shot, the skater is moving towards him but could easily pull up or go around him, but ‘every’ coach expects him to ‘finish his check’ and hit the guy. Why? To intimidate I think. I’d like to see this stopped. It really is gratuitous violence.
My second beef is with the kid who is a ‘hard hitter’. The check is legal and he absolutely hammers kids. And everyone cheers (coaches love these kids). There is a huge potential for injury there and it is completely unnecessary as far as ‘knocking the player off the puck’. Its allowed because people perceive that it is exciting (and coaches love the intimidation factor). I’m fortunate in that my son is a big kid, usually the biggest kid on the ice and hard to knock down so his chances are good for not being injured. If he was a smaller kid I would consider encouraging him to quit. As long as checking as we know it is left in the game it will continue to be seen (by non-hockey people) as a brutal sport played by thugs, and we will continue to put our kids at risk for the sake of making the game ‘exciting’ to watch.

Couldn't have said it better.

Django, I see your point but I do think most hockey fans (and coaches) love to see "hard hits" as long as they are LEGAL. By LEGAL I mean they are NOT from behind and they do NOT involve contact to the head. Those are the hits that need to be minimized to reduce the number of serious injuries.

But I do agree that the rules could (and probably should) be changed to make it a penalty for a LATE HIT that results from a player "finishing the check" and taking it to an extreme. By this I mean a player ramming an opponent WELL AFTER the he passes or shoots the puck. The player delivering the check has plenty of time to back off, but he chooses not to. This is very similar to what they have in the NFL to protect the quarterback - there is no point in delivering the late hit, other than to intimidate or injure. We talk about how kids today are bigger and faster, which they are, but this emphasis on "finishing the check" is one big difference between today's game and what it used to be. And because the kids are bigger and faster it makes today's game more dangerous without serving the REAL purpose of a check, which as you say is to knock the opponent off the puck.

keepyourheadup wrote:Its obvious by the tenor of almost every post that we all wish this type of tragic injury could be avoided. Unfortunately while we can take steps to minimize how often it occurs, hockey by its very nature, is a violent and sometimes dangerous sport. The game itself has evolved over the last 30 years and the speed and size of even high school kids is a far cry from the game us old timers experienced. One of the first and most publicized examples is when BU forward Travis Roy was paralyzed on his first college shift. For those that remember he wasn't even checked but accidentally stumbled at full speed head first into the boards. It pains me to admit it, but as a hockey parents we have to accept the risk involved and thank are lucky stars its not our son or daughter who becomes a statistic. My deepest sympathy goes out to Jack and his family along with all the kids in every sport who have been left disabled playing the game they love. In times like this we all search for answers when the truth is we simply can't protect are children from all potentially dangerous activities. We hand over the keys to an automobile at age 16 knowing full well the risk at hand. Contact sports are much the same, we all know the risks but tend to put them out of mind until something like this happens.

Can totally relate. My oldest son will miss most of his first year of bantams because of a self-inflicted wound. Skating toward the puck he caught an edge and went head first into the boards. The resulting concussion has kept him out since mid November.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Django, I see your point but I do think most hockey fans (and coaches) love to see "hard hits" as long as they are LEGAL. By LEGAL I mean they are NOT from behind and they do NOT involve contact to the head. Those are the hits that need to be minimized to reduce the number of serious injuries.

But I do agree that the rules could (and probably should) be changed to make it a penalty for a LATE HIT that results from a player "finishing the check" and taking it to an extreme. By this I mean a player ramming an opponent WELL AFTER the he passes or shoots the puck. The player delivering the check has plenty of time to back off, but he chooses not to. This is very similar to what they have in the NFL to protect the quarterback - there is no point in delivering the late hit, other than to intimidate or injure. We talk about how kids today are bigger and faster, which they are, but this emphasis on "finishing the check" is one big difference between today's game and what it used to be. And because the kids are bigger and faster it makes today's game more dangerous without serving the REAL purpose of a check, which as you say is to knock the opponent off the puck.

Until one of those legal hard hits cripples a kid. Why should it be legal if a less hard hit would accomplish the same thing?

Bigger faster stronger has been echoed since the late 70's when I was playing Jr hockey. While that has a little bit of truth, It's more about respect for players than anything else. There is just not enough enforcement of the rules and harsh enough penalties to make players change. I personally have been watching a group come up through the ranks and they are in high school now, two of them should have been ban from the sport years ago. It's hitting from behind with no regards what so ever for the other players safety. First time at whatever level should be a game ejection and as many other games that are played until they complete a USA hockey or Minnesota hockey required course on players safety, be it heads up hockey training along with a video I've seen I think from USA hockey or hockey Canada on devastating injuries occurring from illegal hits. Second time offenders at any level after completing whatever course we can establish are gone for the year. The following season if the third strike occurs they are done for good. The total lack of respect has derived from the advancement of the bigger, lighter, more rigid equipment, cages and shields making players think the are indestructible. I'm all about the advancement in helmet safety but nobody ran around crosschecking people in the back and face when we played and had no cage's and half the thickness of the pads they wear now.

D6Rocks wrote:

goldy313 wrote:maybe because in the officiating world rules trump emotion.

This is the problem. In my 40+ years on Earth, not one referee has officiated a game based solely on the rules. If the refs made the correct calls based on the rules, there would be hardly any of these types of hits happening.

If you got a speeding ticket every time you went 1mph over the limit, you would never speed again.
If you had a vacation day taken away every time you were one minute late to work, you would never be late again.
If your kids were grounded every time they were one minute late for curfew, they would never be late again.

You get what you tolerate.

I wish it were that simple but rules in any "multiiple bodies in motion" sport require at least some judgement in the calls. Add to that the fact that refs are human and may not see everything and you start seeing the potential for danger. It is so easy to sit back in the stands or review things on film and say, "how could they miss that". It is totally different to be on the ice with all the speed and movement and expect refs to make every call perfectly.

Do I think there is room for improvement? Sure, everyone can improve. Do I think that we should review how closely they call potentially dangerous hits? Of course...we all want the players to stay safe. I'm just saying that the game is a dangerous game by it's very nature...10 guys going as fast as they can in an small area with walls around it. Nascar has done what they can to make their equipment and sport safer but you still don't eliminate the accidents...some of them fatal. Football has done the same but there are still violent hits that can cause serious injury. We need to do better at identifying ways to make our sport safer but no matter what we do we can't eliminate accidents happening and saying that refs aren't making the right calls is just to simplistic.

Your example of getting a speeding ticket every time you went 1 mph over the limit causing you to never speed again is a perfect example. The fact is that you could still have a tragic injury causing accident even when you are going the speed limit. In the most recent case, no one has said that the hit was dirty, mean or malicious...just the opposite. So does that mean we eliminate the clean hits as well because they could cause injury? No matter how safe we try to make things (seat belts, better cars, speed limits, etc.) we can never eliminate the potential for accidents other than staying home and not being part of it.

This situation is tragic and my heart hurts for everyone involved. I agree with many on the forum that hope this will at least draw attention by coaches, players & refs to be aware of the potential dangers of our sport especially along the boards. The illegal hits along the boards need to be enforced and called more closely. But I am realistic enough to realize that no matter how good our intentions, accidents will still happen.

seek & destroy wrote:

D6Rocks wrote:

goldy313 wrote:maybe because in the officiating world rules trump emotion.

This is the problem. In my 40+ years on Earth, not one referee has officiated a game based solely on the rules. If the refs made the correct calls based on the rules, there would be hardly any of these types of hits happening.

If you got a speeding ticket every time you went 1mph over the limit, you would never speed again.
If you had a vacation day taken away every time you were one minute late to work, you would never be late again.
If your kids were grounded every time they were one minute late for curfew, they would never be late again.

You get what you tolerate.

I wish it were that simple but rules in any "multiiple bodies in motion" sport require at least some judgement in the calls. Add to that the fact that refs are human and may not see everything and you start seeing the potential for danger. It is so easy to sit back in the stands or review things on film and say, "how could they miss that". It is totally different to be on the ice with all the speed and movement and expect refs to make every call perfectly.

Do I think there is room for improvement? Sure, everyone can improve. Do I think that we should review how closely they call potentially dangerous hits? Of course...we all want the players to stay safe. I'm just saying that the game is a dangerous game by it's very nature...10 guys going as fast as they can in an small area with walls around it. Nascar has done what they can to make their equipment and sport safer but you still don't eliminate the accidents...some of them fatal. Football has done the same but there are still violent hits that can cause serious injury. We need to do better at identifying ways to make our sport safer but no matter what we do we can't eliminate accidents happening and saying that refs aren't making the right calls is just to simplistic.

Your example of getting a speeding ticket every time you went 1 mph over the limit causing you to never speed again is a perfect example. The fact is that you could still have a tragic injury causing accident even when you are going the speed limit. In the most recent case, no one has said that the hit was dirty, mean or malicious...just the opposite. So does that mean we eliminate the clean hits as well because they could cause injury? No matter how safe we try to make things (seat belts, better cars, speed limits, etc.) we can never eliminate the potential for accidents other than staying home and not being part of it.

This situation is tragic and my heart hurts for everyone involved. I agree with many on the forum that hope this will at least draw attention by coaches, players & refs to be aware of the potential dangers of our sport especially along the boards. The illegal hits along the boards need to be enforced and called more closely. But I am realistic enough to realize that no matter how good our intentions, accidents will still happen.

I agree with you for the most part S&D, accidents will still happen, but the rate of them would be reduced. Many hard "legal" hits I see in HS hockey today create head contact. I have seen a lot of illegal hits this year that were not called; hands up too high, too late, take your pick. If these hits were called more often, coaches and players would adjust and would focus more on angling, rubbing and more effective hockey checks. If it got to the point where if a player went in for the "big hit" that he knows is going to draw oohs and aahs from the crowd, but he also knows that most likely it will draw a penalty, would the behaviours change? I think it would.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Django, I see your point but I do think most hockey fans (and coaches) love to see "hard hits" as long as they are LEGAL. By LEGAL I mean they are NOT from behind and they do NOT involve contact to the head. Those are the hits that need to be minimized to reduce the number of serious injuries.

Mite-dad wrote:Until one of those legal hard hits cripples a kid. Why should it be legal if a less hard hit would accomplish the same thing?

Because you can't legislate "hard" (would "medium hard" be OK?). And how hard a check ends up being depends on many factors, including the rate of speed of the skater with the puck and whether he has his head down when he's racing towards the player who's about to check him.

I think hard hits (as long as they are otherwise LEGAL!) will always be part of the game, just like hard tackles will always be part of football.