Rules changes for safety

[meg60]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

[PuckU126]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

Change?

The game shouldn't be tampered and that's my opinion.

God forbid any other serious injuries occur, but it's a collision sport and accidents are going to occur.

To mitigate such occurrences, I believe the players should be trained more effectively on how to throw a hit and take a hit.

[HShockeywatcher]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

I agree with PuckU126, because he makes good points, although when this can happen is certainly in question because of the age of players being allowed to hit.

In my opinion, there need to be no rules "changes." The changes that need to occur are in enforcing the rules as written. This change must occur in many stages:
1. The refs calling the rules as written.
2. The coaches allowing the refs to call the rules as written.
3. Parents/supporters supporting the game being played as written.
4. Players responding to how the game is called and NOT retaliating.

If ALL 4 don't happen, like it or not but, it could be quite bad for the game, from any perspective. Think about the realistic effects of ANY of the above not happening even if ALL of the others do.

It's very possible this thread will get locked as we already have one with similar intent going. But I agree it is an issue we are facing, and will continue to face, as more players begin to get injured.

[Listen2me]

Someone please explain to me what purpose checking from behind, or any contact from behind serves. If it's eliminated completely (zero tolerance) how will effect the game we love? Some rule changes effect the game immediately, remove the red line, move blue line back, goalies only can handle pucks in certain areas....across the board, mites to pro's if you make ANY contact in the back just skate to the penalty box. Watch the pro game and watch what players do after they put the puck over the glass, no complaining they skate to the box because their is no "gray" area....they no it's two minutes. Someone please convince me otherwise, how big a dent would we take out of the game if all contact from behind was gone. Their is nothing more violent than a punt or kick return in football and we all see players lift their hands or cut off the block when they see the numbers on the back.

[PuckRanger]

Someone please explain to me what purpose checking from behind, or any contact from behind serves. If it's eliminated completely (zero tolerance) how will effect the game we love? Some rule changes effect the game immediately, remove the red line, move blue line back, goalies only can handle pucks in certain areas....across the board, mites to pro's if you make ANY contact in the back just skate to the penalty box. Watch the pro game and watch what players do after they put the puck over the glass, no complaining they skate to the box because their is no "gray" area....they no it's two minutes. Someone please convince me otherwise, how big a dent would we take out of the game if all contact from behind was gone. Their is nothing more violent than a punt or kick return in football and we all see players lift their hands or cut off the block when they see the numbers on the back.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

The problem lies with the "Let 'em play" mentality. More often than not, the lighter, less obvious hits from behind are called cross checks, boarding, roughing, charging, etc. Then even the more violent checks to the back are called in the minor variety (2 and 10) as opposed to what it should be (5 and a game).

I personally think that any hit from behind, no matter what the intent, should be 5 and a game. (You will see immediately the speed decrease as the players chase into the corner on a dump in as players learn to be in complete control of their actions to avoid this.) Those deemed intentional should be subject to additional suspension. Repeat offenders should be removed from the team for the season... and if that happens more than once, that should signify the end of a hockey career in Minnesota.

I also think that players who turn their back at the last second to take a check in the back should be subject to a 2 minute penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct - similar to the diving penalty that was implemented years back.

As hshockeywatcher points out, regardless it HAS TO BE ZERO TOLERANCE on the part of the coaches, referees, parents, fans, and players, or any rule is useless.

One last thing, I think the fact that checking now starts at a later age hinders some players ability to learn and practice checking and taking a check properly. I would prefer to see checking start at the squirt A level and it be taught properly so when the kids get big and strong enough to do serious damage, they are prepared and do it correctly. Some freshmen could be walking into their first checking experiences at the varsity level and that seems just plain stupid to me. The problem is there are far too many coaches that would not teach it properly at the youth level.

[auld_skool]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

I don't see the need for any new rules. I do, however see the need to actually enforce the rules that already exist in the rule book.

[Bandy]

In my opinion, there need to be no rules "changes." The changes that need to occur are in enforcing the rules as written. This change must occur in many stages:
1. The refs calling the rules as written.
2. The coaches allowing the refs to call the rules as written.
3. Parents/supporters supporting the game being played as written.
4. Players responding to how the game is called and NOT retaliating.

Agree 100%. The rules are there, the enforcement is not, and it's not solely the refs. All parties share some blame, as does to the history and culture of the game.

Read through the rules (USA Hockey's are easily found by google search for: usa hockey rules 2011-13). Especially the preface and the penalties section. I think the MSHSL follows a different rulebook, but I would bet that generally, the same penalties apply, and same emphasis on safety.

Read the rulebook's definitions and emphasis regarding charging, boarding, interference, roughing, and intimidation.

USA Hockey has done an excellent job developing and clarifying the rules. Now it's up to the rest of the hockey community to put the rulebook into practice as it is written, not some watered-down, tough guy, let 'em play version of it.

I see numerous violations every game I go to, boys and girls. Start calling the rules tightly and consistently, and it would not take long before everybody learns.

[Bronc]

I see numerous violations every game I go to, boys and girls. Start calling the rules tightly and consistently, and it would not take long before everybody learns.[/quote]

Not to be cold, but...............1,000,000+ drive by my window anually and once every 3 years there is a accident (1 of 3MM) and sometimes someone gets hurt badly, but normally just a fender bender.

Do we start arresting and pulling every one over who is 1 Mile over the speed limit? Slow down all of the other traffic for that one in 3 million?

Or do focus on looking for those cars out of control, exceeding traffic flow, swerving in and out of traffic and pull them over for the safety of others?

Which makes more sense?

[Bandy]

Not to be cold, but...............1,000,000+ drive by my window anually and once every 3 years there is a accident (1 of 3MM) and sometimes someone gets hurt badly, but normally just a fender bender.

Do we start arresting and pulling every one over who is 1 Mile over the speed limit? Slow down all of the other traffic for that one in 3 million?

Or do focus on looking for those cars out of control, exceeding traffic flow, swerving in and out of traffic and pull them over for the safety of others?

Which makes more sense?

Good point. I submit that every hard-hit into the boards is out of control (Boarding). Every full-speed check (more than 2 strides, by the rulebook) is out of control (Charging). Every avoidable late check ("finish the check") is out of control (Roughing). Every check to a player who doesn't have the puck is out of control (Interference or Roughing). Every Cross Check, Trip, and Slash is out of control.

Players who play out of control are a huge risk. They're your drunk drivers.

It took a culture shift to reduce drunk driving. It's going to take a culture shift to reduce dangerous hits in hockey. I think many of the "1 in a million" catastrophic injuries are avoidable if the game were played cleaner. Not singling out anyone--I think it's the entire hockey culture, boys and mens in particular, but cheap stuff and lax enforcement definitely carries over to the girls side.

I'm also concerned about the 1 in a thousand or 1 in a hundred broken bones, concussions, etc. We all know players who have had concussions, and a lot of them are reluctant to seek the proper attention, and sit out until they're given the green light from their doctor. Cleaning up the game doesn't just reduce the risk of the 1 in a million injuries, but these less catastrophic, more frequent injuries too.

Aside from risk, I also agree with Blatherwick's position that basically says if you break the rules and get away with it, you are cheating. Right now, no doubt that skill, athletisism and hockey IQ are a big part of the game. But so is cheating, because it's engrained in the hockey culture.

[HShockeywatcher]

Not to be cold, but...............1,000,000+ drive by my window anually and once every 3 years there is a accident (1 of 3MM) and sometimes someone gets hurt badly, but normally just a fender bender.

Do we start arresting and pulling every one over who is 1 Mile over the speed limit? Slow down all of the other traffic for that one in 3 million?

Or do focus on looking for those cars out of control, exceeding traffic flow, swerving in and out of traffic and pull them over for the safety of others?

Which makes more sense?

While I don't know that hockey and driving is a perfect analogy (nor do we arrest people for speeding) but my short answer would be "yes."

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. If you don't want to follow the rules (laws) of driving, don't drive. It's pretty simple.

[whos_it]

On the news, hours after this injury occured, they interviewed a young coach that was in a chair from a hockey injury. Help me, those of you who know the specifics. What I found interesting is that he said "I fell and slid into the boards head first". I guess where I am going is you can't eliminate all risk and still have the game of hockey.

These kids are getting very good at turning when their apponent comes leaving them nothing but a checking from behind bullseye. If we are going to penalize checking from behind, we definately need to penalize "causing" checking from behind. I coached my players to never turn their back in the danger zone. We called the danger zone, anywhere from 8 feet in to the boards. They still did it. No matter how many times I harped about it. I actually sat kids and they still did it. These kids just think this type of injury only happens to "the other guy". Long story short, I don't know what you do.

[whos_it]

just a little food for thought:

760 people died riding bikes last year
33,808 died in car accidents last year
20,000 slip and fall fatalities last year
100 or so fatalities while hunting last year

These were just quick google searches. Accuracy may be all over the map. What I was trying to show is that many common activities have devistating risk. The only way to avoid it 100% is to stop doing the activity. When a family loses a loved one in a biking accident they want the rules changed. Same with driving, hunting, showering and hockey. Name the loved one who hasn't wished "they didn't let them drive that day" or "I always worried about her hunting". Society can not be driven by fear all the time. Some things happen. If we can minimize risk without taking the joy away, by all means, do it. BUT BE CAREFUL!!

[PuckU126]

760 people died riding bikes last year
33,808 died in car accidents last year
20,000 slip and fall fatalities last year
100 or so fatalities while hunting last year

These were just quick google searches. Accuracy may be all over the map. What I was trying to show is that many common activities have devistating risk. The only way to avoid it 100% is to stop doing the activity. When a family loses a loved one in a biking accident they want the rules changed. Same with driving, hunting, showering and hockey. Name the loved one who hasn't wished "they didn't let them drive that day" or "I always worried about her hunting". Society can not be driven by fear all the time. Some things happen. If we can minimize risk without taking the joy away, by all means, do it. BUT BE CAREFUL!!

[Defensive Zone]

just a little food for thought:

760 people died riding bikes last year
33,808 died in car accidents last year
20,000 slip and fall fatalities last year
100 or so fatalities while hunting last year

These were just quick google searches. Accuracy may be all over the map. What I was trying to show is that many common activities have devistating risk. The only way to avoid it 100% is to stop doing the activity. When a family loses a loved one in a biking accident they want the rules changed. Same with driving, hunting, showering and hockey. Name the loved one who hasn't wished "they didn't let them drive that day" or "I always worried about her hunting". Society can not be driven by fear all the time. Some things happen. If we can minimize risk without taking the joy away, by all means, do it. BUT BE CAREFUL!!

Interesting data! But to me the question is how can we help prevent catastrophic injuries? I know the sport of hockey is not fail safe. If we can eliminate/minimize hits to the back, neck, or head area, I believe we are going in the right direction.

[HShockeywatcher]

On the news, hours after this injury occured, they interviewed a young coach that was in a chair from a hockey injury. Help me, those of you who know the specifics. What I found interesting is that he said "I fell and slid into the boards head first". I guess where I am going is you can't eliminate all risk and still have the game of hockey.

No one is saying you are eliminating risk. I doubt you could find that quote in anyone's posts. You want to eliminate actions that are against the rules of the game.

These kids are getting very good at turning when their apponent comes leaving them nothing but a checking from behind bullseye. If we are going to penalize checking from behind, we definately need to penalize "causing" checking from behind. I coached my players to never turn their back in the danger zone. We called the danger zone, anywhere from 8 feet in to the boards. They still did it. No matter how many times I harped about it. I actually sat kids and they still did it. These kids just think this type of injury only happens to "the other guy". Long story short, I don't know what you do.

There's something seriously wrong with playing the game to get an opponent to hit you in your back...

Imo, you are right...mostly. If a player intentionally turns into a check from behind, they should be penalized for it. I agree 100%.
As has been expressed by others in other thread, many of these hits that turn into check from behind were illegal hits in the first place. If you are going to hit someone completely legally, it would be much more difficult for this to occur.

[whos_it]

On the news, hours after this injury occured, they interviewed a young coach that was in a chair from a hockey injury. Help me, those of you who know the specifics. What I found interesting is that he said "I fell and slid into the boards head first". I guess where I am going is you can't eliminate all risk and still have the game of hockey.

No one is saying you are eliminating risk. I doubt you could find that quote in anyone's posts. You want to eliminate actions that are against the rules of the game.

These kids are getting very good at turning when their apponent comes leaving them nothing but a checking from behind bullseye. If we are going to penalize checking from behind, we definately need to penalize "causing" checking from behind. I coached my players to never turn their back in the danger zone. We called the danger zone, anywhere from 8 feet in to the boards. They still did it. No matter how many times I harped about it. I actually sat kids and they still did it. These kids just think this type of injury only happens to "the other guy". Long story short, I don't know what you do.

There's something seriously wrong with playing the game to get an opponent to hit you in your back...

Imo, you are right...mostly. If a player intentionally turns into a check from behind, they should be penalized for it. I agree 100%.
As has been expressed by others in other thread, many of these hits that turn into check from behind were illegal hits in the first place. If you are going to hit someone completely legally, it would be much more difficult for this to occur.

I agree, finishing checks, IE the puck is gone, should become a 10 minute major. This is coached by some. If the refs can ever "assume" the check was done for any other reason than to seperate the player from the puck, there should be action taken.

[Bronc]

760 people died riding bikes last year
33,808 died in car accidents last year
20,000 slip and fall fatalities last year
100 or so fatalities while hunting last year

These were just quick google searches. Accuracy may be all over the map. What I was trying to show is that many common activities have devistating risk. The only way to avoid it 100% is to stop doing the activity. When a family loses a loved one in a biking accident they want the rules changed. Same with driving, hunting, showering and hockey. Name the loved one who hasn't wished "they didn't let them drive that day" or "I always worried about her hunting". Society can not be driven by fear all the time. Some things happen. If we can minimize risk without taking the joy away, by all means, do it. BUT BE CAREFUL!!

The young lady hurt this weekend was in a no checking league. Accidents happen.

Can you hit someone after a football is thrown yes (but not more than 2 steps and not in the head). Therefore charging.

Accidents happen and the game is physical, not cheap.

If that is not in your liking your son should play in the XL league, but I bet kids have gotten in accidents there to.

[Bandy]

The young lady hurt this weekend was in a no checking league. Accidents happen.

Can you hit someone after a football is thrown yes (but not more than 2 steps and not in the head). Therefore charging.

Accidents happen and the game is physical, not cheap.

If that is not in your liking your son should play in the XL league, but I bet kids have gotten in accidents there to.

I believe the young lady was checked from behind into the boards. The fact that it's non-checking level is irrelevant. It was a check from behind. A dangerous and illegal play at any level. It's a stretch to call that an accident.

Legal checks = physical game.

Illegal checks = cheap, risky game, and to the extent they go uncalled, is cheating.

[hockey4ever]

IMO we don't need new rules; we need to enforce the ones we have. Coaches and parents have a roll to play in setting the tone for what is expected of their players, and the consequences for not meeting those expectations, regardless of whether penalties were called or not.

I also believe officials need to be consistent and not allow the multitude of cheap shots that happen, particularly at bantam and high school. We all have stories but last weekend I was at a game where a player (after the play was over) gave a wicked slash to an opponent in front of the ref. No penalty was called. 2 minutes later a similar slash occurred and a penalty was called. Did the second player do it because he saw no penalty called the first time?

I fully support the officials calling penalties, and would like to see greater consistency.

[Mite-dad]

I guess I agree with you folks that say that enforcing current rules and better coaching should occur to minimize tragedies. But I still stand by my ascertion that there will always be tragic accidents no matter how much better we ref and coach. And when it happens it will always be too often no matter how infrequent. We are throwing 13 year olds the keys to the car. They are going to make bad decisions that end up being very bad no matter how much training they get and how much rule enforcement they experience.

[northern_guy]

1. better enforcement of current rules, refs quite being light on the calls and calling it crosschecking when it's a blatant assault from behind.

2. better coaching at youth as well as high school levels to teach proper checking..when to check, how to check, when to play the puck and nto check. what could be easier than stealing the puck from a player who's back is facing you and they are facing the boards with their head down?

3. stiffer penalties for assaults from behind. automatic 5 min major and player leaves ice immediately, undresses, and is not allowed in the arena for rest of game, also disqualified from next game and allowed in arena to watch. 2nd offense is 5 min major, kicked out of game, leave arena, and banned for next 3 games, not allowed in arena for those 3 games. 3rd time it happens in a season, player is banned for rest of season.

[MNHockeyFan]

1. better enforcement of current rules, refs quite being light on the calls and calling it crosschecking when it's a blatant assault from behind.

A "blatant assault from behind" deserves more than a 2 minute crosschecking penalty! It needs to be CHANGED AND THEN CALLED a 5 minute major plus a game disqualification (i.e. the player goes to the locker room and then must sit out the next game).

If the offending player does it again, same thing but he sits out the next 3 games.

Does it a third time, and he's done for the season.

I also wouldn't be opposed to having head coaches penalized if any of his players become second or third offenders.

[DianeS]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

Just food for thought. I am not a hockey player, never have been to a game. I did play on the lake as a kid and loved it.

Is it possible to engineer out some of the risk in Hockey? Not rules changes, but design changes of the boards?

Can the boards been re designed to have give to them or some padding to help soften the blow when a player crashes into them?

Perhaps this has been discussed and looked into and all has been done that can be done. If not? It's worth a think.
D

[gitter]

How can the rules be changed to help eliminate the dangerous hits that occur beyond the goal line? Can we eliminate North/South checking behind the goal line and only allow East/West checking?

Just food for thought. I am not a hockey player, never have been to a game. I did play on the lake as a kid and loved it.

Is it possible to engineer out some of the risk in Hockey? Not rules changes, but design changes of the boards?

Can the boards been re designed to have give to them or some padding to help soften the blow when a player crashes into them?

Perhaps this has been discussed and looked into and all has been done that can be done. If not? It's worth a think.
D

The NHL this year mandated all 30 arenas to remove their seamless glass (if it existed). If anyone noticed the Xcel Center this year - that is the reason they changed the glass back to the old stanchions. I see seamless glass cropping up in more and more youth/high school arenas and it needs to stop. There is no give at all in that glass (which is the reason it works without stanchions). Aside from that, I don't know if they can engineer the boards to have more "give" or not. The reality is, hockey has become so much faster, bigger and stronger that the collisions have become much harder (much the same as football).

In my opinion, the penalty severity needs to be increased for illegal checks. Checking from behind and contact to the head should be automatic 5 and game misconducts.

[Listen2me]

It's simple, or so it seems....if you see thier numbers DON'T HIT THEM. I guarantee it will have less effect on the game than the "touch up rule."
If you violate ( even by accident ) 5 minute PP and your out of game. After one year of adjustment by ref's, coaches and players we will talking about something else that hopefully doesn't involve a wheel chair.