MSHSL approves changes for penalites involving boarding, checking from behind, blows to the head

[hockeybc69]

I like it! A step in the right direction in my opinion.

Now hopefully MN Hockey follows suit for the youth hockey.

My son(bantam) was a recipient of a blow to the head on Nov 20th which resulted in a concussion. 2 minute penalty was ridiculous for the shot he took. Not that going to 5 minutes for penalty is the cure-all, but its got to start somewhere.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/137453173.html

[Hockey Guy]

I posted this at the end of the Ben Blood thread, but it fits in here better:

Alright… I’m ready for you all to gang up and bash me for what I’m about to say… I think that 90 percent of the checking from behind penalties that I have witnessed over the last 10 years shouldn’t have been penalties at all. I think that the players that received the checks should have been assessed unsportsmanlike conduct penalties for turning their backs in a situation that they knew they were going to be getting hit in order to draw a penalty. IMO it’s a no different than diving. Look, hockey is a physical sport. I think that the reason players are getting hurt is because of all the rules that have been put into place that are supposed to protect them. Unintended consequences my friends.

I’m 43 years old. I grew up playing hockey and I still play a couple of time each week. We were taught at a the Mite level how to take a hit and we literally practiced it at every level after that. We were taught to develop a “Radar” and to expect a hit at anytime from anywhere. There was no penalty for checking from behind because it was obvious back then that if you were just barely ahead of a guy when you were going into the boards after a loose puck that there was a better than average chance you were going to get hit. There were penalties for Roughing, Boarding, and cross-checking for those ‘Intent to injure’ situations where players were assessed a major penalty or thrown out of the game. I’m just saying that not having checking in the game from the time kids are five years old is doing young players more harm than good. I’m a father and I really feel terrible for the kids and their families that were so severely injured last week, and I don’t want to see my kids get hurt either. But statistically, there is no doubt that the more rules that are implemented; the more injuries occur a few years down the road. I know, I know, the players are bigger and stronger now, but there wouldn’t be nearly as many concussions if these guys were EXPECTING to get hit rather than the other way around. The cheapshot blows to the head would still fall into the major penalty and ejection rules.

I say reinstitute checking all the way down to Mites, teach the players how to take a hit and to expect it, teach them to keep their heads up and develop that “Radar”, and either get rid of the checking from behind penalty or start calling players for diving when they know they’re going to get hit and they turn their back. If there is still intent to injure, the player should be thrown out for boarding or roughing just like it used to be. Alright… Bring it on…

[hockeybc69]

I agree with some of what you are talking about..... And disagree with some too....

Physical play(aka checking) in younger age levels I think is a good idea.

Taking away checking for the most part this year at Peewee level is doomsday for a lot of kids.... Holy cripes... Kids going into Bantams and experiencing their first full fledged physical hockey???? HORRIBLE idea.

Come on.... 90% of checking from behind is the fault of the kid with the puck???

Whats the best method of keeping the puck from a defensive person? Put your body between the defensive guy and the puck...... That means you have to turn to do that, and that means turning away from the defensive player.

Exactly what PMB(Bouchard for those of you wondering what that means) did when he took a face plant into the boards and now may be out of hockey for good....

So to fix this we need to teach kids to turn towards the defensive player to avoid being checked from behind???? I say,,,,, Fat chance thats going to happen.

I am 43. I played youth hockey too. I dont play now. But when I played as a youth through Midgets, we werent allowed to do bad things. You make it sound like there are soooo many new rules compared to when you and I played, and we were allowed to play rogue hockey.

What "new" rules are you talking about that are coddling youth players? We had charging when I played.... That was (I believe), if you checked someone within 2 strides of the hit. I cant say the last time I saw a charging call made in youth hockey. Now its all boarding it seems.

I remember charging being a penalty that was enforced. It wasnt as if we played like the Charleston Chiefs in our day.

[archerystud]

43 as well. I still play a couple times a week and this is the first year in 7 years that I have not coached. The only reason I'm not coaching is because work is taking too much of my time.

Taking checking away from Pee Wee's was a stupid idea. Let the kids learn how to check before they are bigger/stronger and can actually hurt each other. I think you are going to see a lot more injuries at the Bantam level.

I don't think a 5 min major goes far enough. I think you should be thrown out of the next game as well. I saw a perfect incident of this in my son's tournament this weekend. It wasn't in our game as we played next but I was watching this game to pass the time.

Basically the game had been close but the winning team scored a couple of goals at the end to pull away and the score was 4-0. So with 45 seconds left on the clock there was a scrum along the boards at center ice. One of the players for the winning team went in and was facing the boards trying to dig the puck out. A player from the losing team came on the ice and skated the width of the ice and plowed into the back of the player digging the puck out of the scrum. This was a Pee-Wee game where checking is not allowed but the losing players sole intent was to hurt the other kid. He was frustrated and he'd only have to sit in the box for 45 seconds of a game he was going to lose anyway. Now if you make the kid sit another game and give him greater consequences he will think twice next time. Players need to be in control of themselves at all time and should pay the consequences for their actions.

The previous year my son was playing in a tourney when a kid came sliding into him on the ice. My son stuck his skate out to stop the kid. He wasn't trying to slash him with the blade, just halt his progress and the kid never got cut. My kid was kicked out of that game and had to sit out the entire next game. After re-reading the rule it was the right call to make. My son should have stopped the kid with his hands and not his feet. I can guarantee he won't do that again....so he paid the consequences. I don't have a problem with it.

In High School I was knocked unconscious once by another player. I was breaking through center ice when one of my team mates made a pass up to me but it was behind me so I reached back to grab the puck. The opposing defense men stepped up to hit me. The problem is he hit me in the head. I was wearing an I-tech shield and he put the butt end of his stick right through and shattered my shield. His stick hit me square on the cheek bone about an inch below my eye. Had his stick been about an inch higher I would have lost an eye.

In all honesty I have no problem of him hitting me but he could have planted his arms/shoulder in my chest and knocked me flying as well. The problem I had was that he was head hunting and I nearly lost an eye because of it.

As a coach and a player I feel that every player needs to be in control of themselves at all times. Hockey can be a rough/physical game and that shouldn't change but there are times where the penalties should be much stiffer.

[cbrooks]

Good idea of starting a new thread on checking from behind.

This is a good idea IMO. Its unfortunate that its takes something like the Jablonshi case to do it. The players just have to learn to pull up when they see the other players numbers on his jersay. As far as teaching checking at a younger age is a good idea. When I played checking if I remember right, started at the 4th grade level. I don't ever recall of any serious injuries at the younger level all the way to high school in my town because of checking. Teach the kids not to be in those vulnerable position example your back facing the player when against the boards. I'm sure there doing this already.

[Bear55]

I can't say I agree with all of that either hockey guy. I do think that a last minute turn when you know a guy is coming is very stupid and contributes to a lot of injuries. The checker can't possibly stop in time so I do agree that sometime the guy taking the check is at fault. In other situation you have a race for the puck and the guy the wins ends up getting creamed. Sure you have to be aware that someone is there but you still have to play the game and win that race to the puck. There are several way to protect yourself but sometimes you get hit 3-4 feet fromt he boards and there is nothing you can do. Other times a guy if trying to protect the buck and will put his back to you, the checker has to be aware of what is going on too. It seems like everyone goes for the big crushing check these days, which I love by the way, but it can be just as effective and even more so to rub a guy against the boards and take the puck away. One thing is for sure there no easy answers and every situation is different.

[TruthWalleyes]

I posted this at the end of the Ben Blood thread, but it fits in here better:

Alright… I’m ready for you all to gang up and bash me for what I’m about to say… I think that 90 percent of the checking from behind penalties that I have witnessed over the last 10 years shouldn’t have been penalties at all. I think that the players that received the checks should have been assessed unsportsmanlike conduct penalties for turning their backs in a situation that they knew they were going to be getting hit in order to draw a penalty. IMO it’s a no different than diving. Look, hockey is a physical sport. I think that the reason players are getting hurt is because of all the rules that have been put into place that are supposed to protect them. Unintended consequences my friends.

I’m 43 years old. I grew up playing hockey and I still play a couple of time each week. We were taught at a the Mite level how to take a hit and we literally practiced it at every level after that. We were taught to develop a “Radar” and to expect a hit at anytime from anywhere. There was no penalty for checking from behind because it was obvious back then that if you were just barely ahead of a guy when you were going into the boards after a loose puck that there was a better than average chance you were going to get hit. There were penalties for Roughing, Boarding, and cross-checking for those ‘Intent to injure’ situations where players were assessed a major penalty or thrown out of the game. I’m just saying that not having checking in the game from the time kids are five years old is doing young players more harm than good. I’m a father and I really feel terrible for the kids and their families that were so severely injured last week, and I don’t want to see my kids get hurt either. But statistically, there is no doubt that the more rules that are implemented; the more injuries occur a few years down the road. I know, I know, the players are bigger and stronger now, but there wouldn’t be nearly as many concussions if these guys were EXPECTING to get hit rather than the other way around. The cheapshot blows to the head would still fall into the major penalty and ejection rules.

I say reinstitute checking all the way down to Mites, teach the players how to take a hit and to expect it, teach them to keep their heads up and develop that “Radar”, and either get rid of the checking from behind penalty or start calling players for diving when they know they’re going to get hit and they turn their back. If there is still intent to injure, the player should be thrown out for boarding or roughing just like it used to be. Alright… Bring it on…

I agree with you completely and you said it very well.

The only thing i don't like about hockey is the fighting. It is an accepted practice, and should result in a few game suspension rather than a few minute penalty.

Any other sport, if you throw a punch your out for a few games. (granted in football you can pretty much get away with murder if you play on the line) I just don't think fighting belongs in the sport.

[OnAFly]

I think half the problem is that checking now isn't about separating the man from the puck, it's about trying to intimidate the other team or it's about a guy just running around hitting people trying to get under someones skin. They push the envelope and turn the game into a circus.

Guy's don't play to get that next goal, they play to hit someone as hard as they can. It's a shame.

[Hockey Guy]

Absolutely agree. Any obvious intent to injure should be at least a two game suspension. And, repeat offenders should get longer suspension with each offense. But that doesn't change any of the comments I stateed above. Teach checking all the way down at mites. There not big enough at that age to really hurt eachother anyhow.

[Hockey Guy]

I can't say I agree with all of that either hockey guy. I do think that a last minute turn when you know a guy is coming is very stupid and contributes to a lot of injuries. The checker can't possibly stop in time so I do agree that sometime the guy taking the check is at fault. In other situation you have a race for the puck and the guy the wins ends up getting creamed. Sure you have to be aware that someone is there but you still have to play the game and win that race to the puck. There are several way to protect yourself but sometimes you get hit 3-4 feet fromt he boards and there is nothing you can do. Other times a guy if trying to protect the buck and will put his back to you, the checker has to be aware of what is going on too. It seems like everyone goes for the big crushing check these days, which I love by the way, but it can be just as effective and even more so to rub a guy against the boards and take the puck away. One thing is for sure there no easy answers and every situation is different.

Bear55- I see your points, but my point is that if you know you’re going to get hit you will prepare for the hit. The only way a guy is going to get creamed into the boards from 3-4 feet away when two guys are racing to the puck is if there is another penalty. If two players are going roughly the same speed and guy behind pushes him down by extending his arms forward in a pushing motion, it's either cross-checking or boarding. If you are chasing me into the boards and I get there first, I'm going to prepare for the hit by laying against the boards while I protect the puck with my skates. I guarantee that you will get hurt more than I will if you hit me hard in that situation. You will also bounce farther back away from the boards and take yourself out of the play. Anything other than a clean check that you give me during your hit would still be a penalty. I just find it hard to believe that more hockey purists out there don't get as frustrated as I do when guys turn their back in the heat of battle and expect that the other guy is going to let up. It reminds me of little kids playing tag at the playground and then calling 'timeout' right before they're going to get tagged. Everyone saw the play that Bouchard on the Wild broke his nose on. The player was right there behind him digging and pushing him and then Bouchard turns towards the boards? What does he think is going to happen? And, why should that other player just have to give up on getting that puck in that situation? Just because Bouchard calls "timeout"?

[hockeybc69]

Really? Bouchard turned to take a timeout??

He was spinning to go back the other way with the puck. I dont know what you are looking at.

Should he or any player turn towards the defender in this case? I would like to know how a hockey purist can look at this and say Bouchard wasnt trying to escape back the other direction to create an opp. Should he have stood up, turned towards the guy and just give hime the puck?

Here is the vid.

[archerystud]

I forgot to add this:

In the case of the last second turn towards the boards, then the checker has to be given some credit.

I'm not sure how many of you coach but one of USA Hockey's biggest pushes is small ice/battling games. The biggest thing they stress is keeping your body between the other player and the puck. Thus the natural tendency to turn away and shield the puck.

[Bear55]

Agreed on the spinning point Hockey guy, you might even find a post from me talking about that exact Bouchard hit, I didn't defend him that is for sure. That was just a dumb move, clearly a penality, but Bouchard can't pull that [PoorWordUsage] at the last second and expect to not get killed.

[Hockey Guy]

Really? Bouchard turned to take a timeout??

He was spinning to go back the other way with the puck. I dont know what you are looking at.

Should he or any player turn towards the defender in this case? I would like to know how a hockey purist can look at this and say Bouchard wasnt trying to escape back the other direction to create an opp. Should he have stood up, turned towards the guy and just give hime the puck?

Here is the vid.

Yes, if Bouchard wasn’t expecting to get hit in that situation then he is effectively calling a timeout. It was an unfortunate incident without a doubt, but Bouchard saw the other player. He even stopped and started briefly to go into the corner, and then he turned right into the guy. To answer your condescending questions, no, Bouchard shouldn’t have stood up, turned toward the guy, or given him the puck. He should have exercised one of the twenty different options he did have OR done exactly what he did do. He should have been expecting to get hit though if that’s the choice he elects to make. And, any hockey purist can look at that play and easily see that Bouchard was turning back into the play to create an opportunity. That’s fine… Expect to get hit!

In this situation the ref called the player for a boarding penalty. Personally I would have called him for cross-checking, but either way he was kicked out. Maybe that wasn’t the best example because the refs didn’t call checking from behind. Almost every college came you watch now you will see at least two plays where a player turns his back. You may think I’m nuts now, but now that you’ll be looking for it, you’ll see what I’m talking about. Remember, my point IS NOT that these guys are hit in the back! My point is that they should be aware of their surroundings, be expecting to get hit, and know how to take that hit.

I am also a coach and have taken the USA Hockey training. There is a big difference between using your body to protect the puck and turning your back when you know you are going to get hit. Besides, my point is, and has always been; that you can turn any direction you want and you can protect the puck anyway you want. Just be expecting at all times that you could get hit…

[scsavre]

Players need to learn to protect themselves that's all there is to it. I'm tired of people trying to change the sport due to freak incidents. Can you imagine how terrible the usa teams would be international if we couldn't check until highschool. What a joke. Learning how to keep your headup and still play the game is a huge learning curve. Do you really want to go through that when kids are 6' 180lbs........

When I was young parents had the option if they didn't want therekid to play in a competetive rough league, they could play in house. Parents, if you don't have the time to work with your kid and teach him to protect himself, maybe you should look to a lower level.

Sometimes offenders are offenders and it doesn't mattr what the penalty, get those kids and parents out of the game.

Bouchards hit, they were both at fault. Bouchard has to know how to protect himself and the puck, looking at his track record, maybe he needs a refresher.

[Hockey Guy]

Well said...