Contact to the Head

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Contact to the Head

We train and pay the refs for their judgment on the ice, and that's where the rule needs to be applied with skill and intention.

Obviously contact to the head happens all the time in hockey, with varying degrees of intensity. There is a very fine line between an attempt to intimidate (which any coach will tell you is part of hockey) and an attempt to injure. The speed of the game is so fast that a guy lining up a check can't always adjust in time to a change of position by the guy about to be checked.

If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

I agree with you 100% about getting rid of the full shield and have been saying it for years. The "Cage courage" you speak of is 100% correct. I think I am going to steal that from you and start using it.

The one thing I will dissagree with you on is the insurance industry stopping the NCAA from switching. There are two different types of insurance that comes into play when it comes to a hockey team. The first is liability insurance. This is needed in case someone dies. Since someone dying during a game is so rare taking the shield off isn't going to cause the premiums to go up. There is way to much data to show there is no Correlation between having a half shield or a full mask and dying on the ice.

The second type of insurance that comes into play is medical coverage. This is where people think teams are more likely to see a increase in premiums do to people getting hit in the face with pucks and sticks. Being in this industry I can tell you the rates probably wouldn't go up at if they went to a half shield. The rating models used wouldn't take a factor like half or full shield and load teams premiums because ot it. The administrators are the problem and I don't see them changing because our ignorant public opinion is the full mask is safer.

[fiqure8]

Re: Contact to the Head

We train and pay the refs for their judgment on the ice, and that's where the rule needs to be applied with skill and intention.

Obviously contact to the head happens all the time in hockey, with varying degrees of intensity. There is a very fine line between an attempt to intimidate (which any coach will tell you is part of hockey) and an attempt to injure. The speed of the game is so fast that a guy lining up a check can't always adjust in time to a change of position by the guy about to be checked.

If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

Introduce fighting in the game so the goons can get out their frustrations !

[MikeAnderson]

Re: Contact to the Head

I don't think insurance companies are stopping it. I highly doubt premiums would go up at all if they switched. It is the ignorant administators that would stop this from happening.

Isn't the rules committee considering impletementing the half-shield (or, perhaps more accurately, 3/4 shield)? I seem to remember that in the late offseason kvetching.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Contact to the Head

Isn't the rules committee considering impletementing the half-shield (or, perhaps more accurately, 3/4 shield)? I seem to remember that in the late offseason kvetching.

I thought they were doing that for the men only this year. Or is that only for the exhibition games?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Contact to the Head

Introduce fighting in the game so the goons can get out their frustrations !

Hasn't the NC$$ been trying to get more people to the games anyway?

[Puck Swami]

Re: Contact to the Head

I agree with you 100% about getting rid of the full shield and have been saying it for years. The "Cage courage" you speak of is 100% correct. I think I am going to steal that from you and start using it.

I heard it right from the mouth of legendary BU coach Jack Parker, so credit him, not me.

[FireKnight]

Re: Contact to the Head

Like most calls in hockey there has to be some judgment on the part of the referees. If a ref feels that a player was trying to injure another player that should be a game misconduct with no hesitation at all on the ref's part. Players trying to injure other players don't deserve to play. There are guys in the NHL like that--they should be kicked out of the league. It's like anything else in life--judges, refs, government officials, business managers--if the people in charge have brains then it works. Any fan can tell the difference between a dirty hit with intent to injure and a clean one. If a ref can't tell the difference he shoud find something else to do.

I agree with you completely that intent to injure deserves a suspension, permanently on the second offense. The problem is that the rule, as it is currently written, makes no mention of intent. In fact, if you watch the NCAA video, it is very clear that any contact to the head is to be called a major penalty and game misconduct. With all the attention that concussions are getting these days, you can bet that the NCAA is not going to be happy with the current enforcement of the rule and it will change during the season. I watched 2 games Saturday evening and honestly only saw one check where the point of impact was above the neck. It was called a minor for roughing; this was not the intent of the rule. However, the fact that I only saw one hit to the head may mean that players are being more cognizant of head contact.

The NHFS and NFL have both set precedent with their contact to the head rules (NFHS in several sports and NFL obviously in football). The onus has clearly been shifted from the player being hit to the player doing the hitting to make sure there is not head contact. There is the argument that a player cannot stop on a dime, which is true, but the hitter is going to be expected to. Almost every sports medicine and AD meeting in high schools these days has concussions as a point of discussion. Since the summer, we have had almost a dozen high schools sign up with my ambulance service for HS football game coverage (the past NFHS rule required either an ambulance or MD) and some have even extended the ambulance requirement to soccer, lax, and hockey games. The good news ... Army contracted us for the first time to cover their hockey games.

It definitely seems to me that refs are rule as they were instructed to. It may not be fair, but if the force of the hit is to the head or neck, it must be a major penalty, regardless of intent. I think the only place where judgment comes in is if the contact was centered at or below the shoulders but the head was involved. These hits are much less likely to cause concussion syndrome (or worse).

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Contact to the Head

I agree with you completely that intent to injure deserves a suspension, permanently on the second offense. The problem is that the rule, as it is currently written, makes no mention of intent. In fact, if you watch the NCAA video, it is very clear that any contact to the head is to be called a major penalty and game misconduct. With all the attention that concussions are getting these days, you can bet that the NCAA is not going to be happy with the current enforcement of the rule and it will change during the season. I watched 2 games Saturday evening and honestly only saw one check where the point of impact was above the neck. It was called a minor for roughing; this was not the intent of the rule. However, the fact that I only saw one hit to the head may mean that players are being more cognizant of head contact.

The NHFS and NFL have both set precedent with their contact to the head rules (NFHS in several sports and NFL obviously in football). The onus has clearly been shifted from the player being hit to the player doing the hitting to make sure there is not head contact. There is the argument that a player cannot stop on a dime, which is true, but the hitter is going to be expected to. Almost every sports medicine and AD meeting in high schools these days has concussions as a point of discussion. Since the summer, we have had almost a dozen high schools sign up with my ambulance service for HS football game coverage (the past NFHS rule required either an ambulance or MD) and some have even extended the ambulance requirement to soccer, lax, and hockey games. The good news ... Army contracted us for the first time to cover their hockey games.

It definitely seems to me that refs are rule as they were instructed to. It may not be fair, but if the force of the hit is to the head or neck, it must be a major penalty, regardless of intent. I think the only place where judgment comes in is if the contact was centered at or below the shoulders but the head was involved. These hits are much less likely to cause concussion syndrome (or worse).

With the NFL, I believe the biggest one discussed is "helmet-to-helmet" hitting, which is now a mandatory fine and suspension. Luckily we don't have any players leading with their head (at least in the games I've watched), as that could really be severely injuring the hitter's neck. We'll see if the next thing they try is to institute some sort of "tuck rule", where you're only allowed to lead a shoulder or side of the body rather than push off (although there is the cross-checking rule, and that could already tie in there).

[uaafanblog]

Re: Contact to the Head

I'd tend to think that the NCAA recognizes that the "medical insuance" industry generally (and ridiculously) never includes "dental" coverage. Sure, an emergency room doctor will stop your bleeding. But someone's gonna have to pay for the crowns, bridges and dentures. No doubt there are more modern players with most of their teeth than in the past. I'd have to believe that full face shields have contributed to that in some small measure. Perhaps it isn't a big factor in the NCAA's decision. Or is the NCAA a bunch of anti-dentites scheming to keep it's players out of dental chairs?