NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[FireKnight]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I don't think the women's game has lost anything by not allowing body checking along the boards. In fact, to the untrained eye, I'd bet that most don't even realize the difference. The thing I find not in the best interest of the game is the open ice hits. Hockey is supposed to be a battle for the puck and a battle for position in an attempt to achieve the ultimate goal of putting the puck in the net. If a speed player is coming at you, a physical defenseman, on open ice, you have the choice of taking a penalty or letting them skate by. It puts the defense at a distinct disadvantage. The number of injuries on open ice hits is pretty insignificant in the men's game, unless they are hits that are otherwise prohibited by the rules. I would like to see clean open ice hits to be allowed.

[zoofer]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Just to clarify, I'm not in favor of checking, let alone more of it...I would like the contact that there is to be allowed....D2D maybe right and the refs can't keep up with the game as is but I don't like every time girls collided for their to be a penalty, for either contact or interference...I'm not advocating for anything more than letting the women's game flow like the men's where contact doesn't mean a whistle....
Good conversation here Gents!

[puckluck39]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Timothy A. Really?

"I'm all for de-segregating sports based on sex wherever possible (bowling, curling, skiing to name a few). If you banned all checking/fighting in both men's and women's hockey period, I think there would be some great crosssover women's players into the NHL, and even moreso at the college level."

I hope you are not serious about this statement of crossover women's players into the NHL and college. This has to be the craziest thing I have read on this forum. I had to join just to comment on it.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'm not advocating for anything more than letting the women's game flow like the men's where contact doesn't mean a whistle....

That's pretty well-stated. I like this. Granted they do allow some contact but it's up to the referee in a given game to determine how much contact they are going to allow. Someone mentioned that it's a little more lenient in the CWHL, I haven't been to a game to notice.

You're probably right though, that women could bulk up their necks to look like linebackers so that the people who have no intention of watching their games would have to think up a new reason to not attend.

Come on ARM you know I never said nor implied that. Bit of a cheap shot I think.

As for your opinion on the physiology thing, when you have women playing with women, they are all roughly the same size as their opponents, just like in men's hockey. So I don't think it's much of a factor. Not saying I'm right -- I'm no doctor -- but just doesn't seem to matter because everyone on the ice is proportionally the same size.*

*Chara vs. Gaudreau differences excepted

Good conversation here Gents!

Yes, absolutely!

Here's a question I'll pose, in a different way: Should open-ice checking be made illegal in men's hockey? That's the only real difference to the women's game, right?

[jumbodaddy77]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It's interesting that when it comes to the question of checking in girl's/women's hockey, some people gravitate toward gender-equity, while others focus on player safety, and still others consider fan interest. Obviously, these are all important considerations. However, I'd be really interested to learn more about what the women would choose. It's their game after all. If we were able to survey the US/Canada Olympians what do you think they'd prefer? What about D1 players? If any current high-level players have a moment to kill, I'd love to hear what you think about adding checking to the game. My hunch is that when it comes to sports like softball, lacrosse, and others, the vast majority of high-level players would reply that they love their sport more or less as is. I'm less sure about big-time womens hockey players.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It's interesting that when it comes to the question of checking in girl's/women's hockey, some people gravitate toward gender-equity, while others focus on player safety, and still others consider fan interest. Obviously, these are all important considerations. However, I'd be really interested to learn more about what the women would choose. It's their game after all. If we were able to survey the US/Canada Olympians what do you think they'd prefer? What about D1 players? If any current high-level players have a moment to kill, I'd love to hear what you think about adding checking to the game. My hunch is that when it comes to sports like softball, lacrosse, and others, the vast majority of high-level players would reply that they love their sport more or less as is. I'm less sure about big-time womens hockey players.

That's a good question. It would be really interesting, especially if you were able to poll a bit more about their time in the sport as well -- particularly those who played on boys' teams growing up.

I would guess you'd see something of a 50/50 split. But I'm totally pulling that guess out of nowhere.

I did ask one former player and her response was she didn't think checking should be made legal, her reason being "It would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."

I'll ask a few more that I know.

EDIT -- Running tally:

For (4):
--"Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"
--"I would be a fan of it. I wasn't super skilled so it would have been to my benefit."
--"Sure... Probably lead to less slashing"
--"You should know my opinion from how often I was in the box. I think it should totally be legal!"

Against (2):
--"I don't think they should do it. It would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."
--"No. Too hard on the female body..we don't have testosterone pumping through us to keep us going"

[Rightnut]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

That's a good question. It would be really interesting, especially if you were able to poll a bit more about their time in the sport as well -- particularly those who played on boys' teams growing up.

I would guess you'd see something of a split. But I'm totally pulling that guess out of nowhere.

I did ask one former player and her response was she didn't think checking should be made legal, her reason being "it would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."

EDIT: Asked another former player who played boys' hockey growing up and her response was "Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"

I'll ask a few more that I know.

I agree that its the players who should decide this question - if it was ever really asked- which is unlikely. My bet is that those players who grew up playing boys' hockey into the checking levels would be in favor of checking/more contact and the majority of those who played mainly girls hockey would choose the current rules. Either way, its a great debate. What I find disturbing, and it was alluded to earlier, is that the default for female sports is the "safer" or no contact form of the sport. If its girl on girl or woman on woman, why can't they play by the same rules without modification? I understand the argument that some make that they are in fact "different sports" but they are not really, they are modifications of the original to allow for females to play. Girls lacrosse is a complete joke. Its unwatchable. My hockey playing D plays girls lacrosse and says its terrible. Why can't they put the pads on and play more like the boys? I think this day in age they should allow the women to play by the real rules without modification, or at least offer both options. Why can't their be a parallel girls/women's leagues that allow checking or a girls lax league where they wear the pads and whack the crap out of each other?

[wwhyte]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

--"Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"

Kelli Stack to thread!

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Timothy A. Really?

"I'm all for de-segregating sports based on sex wherever possible (bowling, curling, skiing to name a few). If you banned all checking/fighting in both men's and women's hockey period, I think there would be some great crosssover women's players into the NHL, and even moreso at the college level."

I hope you are not serious about this statement of crossover women's players into the NHL and college. This has to be the craziest thing I have read on this forum. I had to join just to comment on it.

Why is it so crazy? Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could have played men's college hockey if it was no check. I also think Vetter and Rigsby could also crossover, but checking and goaltending has no issue. Why couldn't Knight play in the NHL if it was no check? I'm only using Knight because I am very familiar with her, there may be some other players who could also.

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

As for your opinion on the physiology thing, when you have women playing with women, they are all roughly the same size as their opponents, just like in men's hockey. So I don't think it's much of a factor. Not saying I'm right -- I'm no doctor -- but just doesn't seem to matter because everyone on the ice is proportionally the same size.*

Whether or not it's a question of physiology (I suspect that it is but it's not my field) women's ice hockey already has the highest concussion rate of any NCAA sport. So there is something going on here.

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Whether or not it's a question of physiology (I suspect that it is but it's not my field) women's ice hockey already has the highest concussion rate of any NCAA sport. So there is something going on here.

Bingo! I think there is something to ARM's theory. There are many more violent collisions in men's hockey than women's, but women seem to more concussion-prone.

[puckluck39]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Why is it so crazy? Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could have played men's college hockey if it was no check. I also think Vetter and Rigsby could also crossover, but checking and goaltending has no issue. Why couldn't Knight play in the NHL if it was no check? I'm only using Knight because I am very familiar with her, there may be some other players who could also.

I disagree that Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could of played Men's Division 1 Hockey. I am not saying that they are not great players. They are just at too big of a competitive disadvantage due to physiological differences between men and women. The speed is at an entirely different level in the men's game.

Past Women's USA Olympic teams have played against average MN high school teams to prepare for the olympics. These were competitive games.

There is zero chance that Knight could play in the NHL if it was no check.

I view this forum because I enjoy women's hockey. I also enjoy men's hockey, but realize that the speed and skill of men's and women's hockey are at completely different levels.

[UCONN FAN]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Why is it so crazy? Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could have played men's college hockey if it was no check. I also think Vetter and Rigsby could also crossover, but checking and goaltending has no issue. Why couldn't Knight play in the NHL if it was no check? I'm only using Knight because I am very familiar with her, there may be some other players who could also.

There is No WAY the could even play DI let alone in the NHL!!! They would struggle on a top level DIII team. Both great players but not even close....Check or no check.

[ARM]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Come on ARM you know I never said nor implied that. Bit of a cheap shot I think.

You started it. I'm not sure what you meant then, as you implied that I was being sexist, when my only objective is that I don't want to see an increase in concussions. I see that as a far greater threat to the future of the game than the fact that people who aren't going to watch in any case aren't currently interested.

As for your opinion on the physiology thing, when you have women playing with women, they are all roughly the same size as their opponents, just like in men's hockey. So I don't think it's much of a factor. Not saying I'm right -- I'm no doctor -- but just doesn't seem to matter because everyone on the ice is proportionally the same size.

That would be true if they were smaller models of the exact same design; however, they aren't. Proportionally, female hockey players thighs are every bit as developed as those of male counterparts. I don't think the same is true of their necks. I realize that those necks are supporting heads that average out to a smaller size. You are correct that the impact from the collisions with other female hockey players would be less, but that isn't the case when colliding with objects that are stationary or nearly so such as the ice, the boards, and the post. The female player brings less energy into the collision with such objects, but if they weigh less, then they also have less mass over which to distribute that energy.

That's a good question. It would be really interesting, especially if you were able to poll a bit more about their time in the sport as well -- particularly those who played on boys' teams growing up.

I would guess you'd see something of a 50/50 split. But I'm totally pulling that guess out of nowhere.

I think current players would be largely in favor. I've heard female coaches say that they wanted checking when they played, but once they started coaching, their position evolved.

I guess I wouldn't be as opposed to it if the objective was to separate a player from the puck, and I think that was the idea when the game was first invented. In men's hockey, the goal of a check is more often to blow someone up. It's no longer a strategy for defending the net, but rather a means to intimidate and take a physical toll on the opponent. The talent level in the women's game resembles a steeper pyramid than in men's, so a dilution of that talent pool by an increase in injury would damage the level of play more quickly.

[Blackbeard]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Err... that's a pretty touchy road you're choosing to go down.

Not so, if I correctly remember one or more articles referencing physiological studies/facts in the "Concussion" thread from a year or more ago.

He's basically just reiterating some of the conclusions expressed in those articles.