College Hockey...getting way too soft!

[solovsfett]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

A player has to be held accountable for his actions on the ice, much like a driver who chooses to get behind the wheel at his own discretion. This is the responsibility that comes with a physical game with real consequences of physcial actions that should not be taken lightly.

If a player has his head down or is facing the boards, the player about to make the hit needs to understand that throwing one's elbow/shoulder into the head of the unsuspecting player or sending him face-first into the boards won't be tolerated. I don't think this message was sent with Malone getting docked a game while the unsuspecting player may never play hockey again.

The punishment has to be enforced uniformly, regardless of the underlying injury or lack of injury that took place. I personally think Malone should have gotten something to the effect of 10 games (25% of the season) regardless of whether Martin got up and skated away or was carted off in a stretcher. By basing the punishment on the consequences of the poor decision, that undermines the integrity / spirit of what folks are trying to get cleaned up.

Until we are willing to hold players accountable for their actions and the choices they make (and Malone made a very conscience choice), then we will continue to see broken necks, paralysis, and other incidents that none of us (I think) want to see happen in the game we love. If we stiffen the penalties, we wll absolutely see hits to the head, boarding, etc penalties drastically reduced. Case in point, last time I checked, there isn't too mcuh fighting in NCAA hockey because it comes with an automatic 1 game suspension. Imagine if boarding or a hit to the head came with an automatic 5 games?

We should all look at the game as if our own children were out there. Somehow, I think we would want more safeguards in place. The consequences of these cowardly hits are not worth it, regardless of fans getting a cheap thrill every now and again.

right on.

re: malone I thought the hit was vicious and unnecessary however I would have liked to have seen about another 1/2 second prior to see what Malone was looking at.

but if it's anything like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvjqW5pAuAg

where I'd argue there was deliberate intent to injure by this complete coward of a player (given the sioux player was gliding until he saw Brendan Smith with his head down, then he decides to take 3-4 strides and destroy him), then it's really just adding another one to the list of over the line penalties by this team in particular under this particular coach.

I just hope we don't have to face seeing a kid get paralyzed before the coaches and refs take this seriously. the warrior code is bs, and taking advantage of people who have their heads down is bs. these kids know exactly what they're doing when they go out and dish these cheap hits out

HOWEVER, as MCR said if the NCAA gets rid of bird cages and shields that would be a big step in eventually reducing these actions coming from the other angle, and then if/when they do that, they should reduce the fighting majors so that a kid can be an enforcer for his team and 1 fight wouldn't get him a game. 2 fights, yeah sure then give him a game. 3 fights and the punishment goes up significantly but the NCAA really has 2 choices on this ENFORCE these CFB/Boarding/Contact the head penalties as agressively as possible or let the players go out and enforce on their own.

I think we all know most Mom's and Dad's are going to favor the league cracking down rather than watch their kid get a beatdown because he couldn't control himself.

[solovsfett]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

a question. (because nobody likes seeing these things happen) did players suffer these catastrophic injuries (spinal cords, broken necks, etc) in the 50's, 60's and 70's? college and pros? being just a wee thing back in the day, I don't remember. are the injuries more prevalent these days? if so why? and what can be done?
it seems like better equipment and protection leads to more and harder hitting which leads to more injuries.

in the 50's, 60's and 70's we had players who'd enforce out there. fighting was allowed. it was very much a pro-style game that way. injuries like what we're seeing now didn't seem to occur as often because of that (plus they didn't wear shields back then so players were less careless). ALSO, concussions I'm sure we're mis-diagnosed as "having his bell rung"

[Puck Swami]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

a question. (because nobody likes seeing these things happen) did players suffer these catastrophic injuries (spinal cords, broken necks, etc) in the 50's, 60's and 70's? college and pros? .

Yes. Here are just some pre-Martin catastrophic Denver Pioneer injuries: Denver freshmen Barry Sharp was killed by a puck to the head in practice the early 50s. Pioneer George Congrave took a skate to the head in the late 50s and never played again. Denver graduate Bill Masterton was killed in an NHL game in 1968, when his hit head hit the ice. He is the only NHLer to die in a game. DU's Mike Aikens was was checked into the boards by Wisconsin's Sean Hill in 1991 - he broke his neck and never played again. And Denver's Brent Cary broke his neck in practice in 1995, but did come back to play later in his career.

[Huskiefan906]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

My son is a Mite and I cringe at the thought of someone running him in the future like you see in the game these days.

Charging is very rarely called. Anything more than 2-3 steps should constitute a charging penalty. This takes the pre-meditated hit out of the game.

Checking is meant to be a tactic to take a player off the puck, not send him to the hospital.

I think absolutely the half shields should be implemented next season.

The players are bigger, faster, and hit harder than ever before. The game needs to adjust so that you don't see the catastrophic injuries year after year.

[bearsFan93]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

Darn right. We are better and more awesome than everyone. The refs have to make stuff up and cheat us to even the field. You know how much opposing fans whine about UND now? Imagine their bellyaching if the refs didn't try evening the field every game.

Thats what happened at Maine, right Dirty?

[bothman]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

but if it's anything like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvjqW5pAuAg

That is atrocious, particularly in the wake of what happend to Denver's Martin. As they say, in one ear, out the other when there are minimal repercussions by the NCAA and the team.

Makes me think that the inmates are running the asylum up in Sioux land. To that point, when you see a team consistently taking things into their own hands and running players with cheap shots (such as the clip above), then the coach needs to ultimately held accountable, in addition to the player.

Again, if 5 games were given for this sort of stuff (both to the player and for the coach if this is a commonplace event for a team), you will see this stuff significantly curtailed.

[Dirty]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

Thats what happened at Maine, right Dirty?

Exactly what happened. UND can't be beaten unless the refs cheat.

[Biddco]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

I figure they are putting all these rules in to prevent players brains from becoming too soft...

[cg_siouxfan]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

That is atrocious, particularly in the wake of what happend to Denver's Martin. As they say, in one ear, out the other when there are minimal repercussions by the NCAA and the team.

That video is from 2007.

[bothman]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

That video is from 2007.

My bad. I just assumed since the two teams played this past weekend, that was where the hit took place.

[Osorojo]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

With an 88% win rate in games by teams with more power play goals than their opponents it should not take long for reasonably sensible coaches to work hard on their power plays and work equally hard to avoid providing opponents with power play opportunities. This will change the game, but will not change the whining and yapping about officiating by guess who? LOSERS!

[solovsfett]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

My bad. I just assumed since the two teams played this past weekend, that was where the hit took place.

I posted it because this past weekend caused me to re-think how that team plays under this coach given the hits on murray and martin this year. when I re-watched it I felt much angrier than when I saw it live. live I didn't see the sioux player glide then see Smith head down and decide to run him. I only saw the hit as I was watching Turris most of that time. so I posted to add to the debate, I should have qualified w/the date

[SoCalSiouxFan]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

right on.

re: malone I thought the hit was vicious and unnecessary however I would have liked to have seen about another 1/2 second prior to see what Malone was looking at.

Yes the hit was vicious, welcome to the WCHA, in retrospect yes we all wish that check was less violent. Malone saw an opposing player in possession of the puck and he was expected to get there quickly to make a play. Coaches teach their players to take full strides up thru the moment of contact not to just coast up to a player and make a hit. Checking is most effective when you eliminate the time and space needed for the opposing player to make a play up ice.

Was the contact necessary. Of course it was necessary Martin was in possession of the puck and Malone was expected to stop him from moving the puch up ice as quickly as possible. Malone's well executed check happened quickly and was effective in moving Martin off the puck just as any coach would expect in any normal situation except that Martin had his head down.

What was Malone looking at? He was looking to take the puck away from Martin. Bigger question was what was Martin looking at when he was heading up ice. He should have known he was about to be checked. He should have seen Malone comming because Malone was right in front of him. Malone didn't check him from behind and didn't even blind side him from the side, he was right in front of him. Malone didn't even make any attemt to hit Martin in the head. His hands an stick were waist or maybe chest high which is normal. Looked more like Martin may have lowered his head and ran his head into Malone's forearms or his stick.

[Koho]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

A player has to be held accountable for his actions on the ice, much like a driver who chooses to get behind the wheel at his own discretion. This is the responsibility that comes with a physical game with real consequences of physcial actions that should not be taken lightly.

If a player has his head down or is facing the boards, the player about to make the hit needs to understand that throwing one's elbow/shoulder into the head of the unsuspecting player or sending him face-first into the boards won't be tolerated. I don't think this message was sent with Malone getting docked a game while the unsuspecting player may never play hockey again.

The punishment has to be enforced uniformly, regardless of the underlying injury or lack of injury that took place. I personally think Malone should have gotten something to the effect of 10 games (25% of the season) regardless of whether Martin got up and skated away or was carted off in a stretcher. By basing the punishment on the consequences of the poor decision, that undermines the integrity / spirit of what folks are trying to get cleaned up.

Until we are willing to hold players accountable for their actions and the choices they make (and Malone made a very conscience choice), then we will continue to see broken necks, paralysis, and other incidents that none of us (I think) want to see happen in the game we love. If we stiffen the penalties, we wll absolutely see hits to the head, boarding, etc penalties drastically reduced. Case in point, last time I checked, there isn't too mcuh fighting in NCAA hockey because it comes with an automatic 1 game suspension. Imagine if boarding or a hit to the head came with an automatic 5 games?

We should all look at the game as if our own children were out there. Somehow, I think we would want more safeguards in place. The consequences of these cowardly hits are not worth it, regardless of fans getting a cheap thrill every now and again.

I agree with most of what was written here and in Swami's post. We need to protect the players and therefore a player about to make a check needs to consider the consequences if the other player has his head down. Refs will always be inconsistent on any call, but in the case of these penalties that can produce a serious injury in a young man, I am fine with erring on the side of safety. I think the example of how the game has changed with increased penalties for fighting is a good example.

I also question the old argument that full faceshields should be taken away to solve the problem. The game is faster, players bigger, sticks make shots much harder than when players didn't wear them. Pucks and sticks will deflect up no matter how much one lets off on the hitting. In my adult league, with only a handful of players without masks, I've seen a broken nose and a few cases of stitches (including one right next to the eye) in recent years where NO checking is allowed or occurs. You'll never see the day when kids younger than HS don't wear masks, because parents don't want their kids to loose their teeth and get broken noses and scars. If they play for 10 years with masks, then take them away, you think players will suddenly keep their sticks down and 90 mph slap shots off a graphite stick won't get deflected into a kids face? Facemasks prevent many injuries caused by accidents from occurring. Penalties can be used to prevent injuries cause by overaggressive play.

Just like football, athletes today are better conditioned to be faster, bigger and have a harder shot. Punishing these potentially dangerous plays is necessary, and doesn't mean that there will be no physical play in hockey in the future. (And I will admit my bias. While I like to see a team hit a lot to get in sync and admire a good clean check, it is the skill play that makes hockey the greatest game to watch.)

On another note, maybe another thread has covered this, but I don't like the 'double jeopardy" rule that makes a team still sit for a PP even if the other team scores before the whistle. I don't want to see games decided because a marginal call away from the puck results in two goals for this reason.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: College Hockey...getting way too soft!

With an 88% win rate in games by teams with more power play goals than their opponents it should not take long for reasonably sensible coaches to work hard on their power plays and work equally hard to avoid providing opponents with power play opportunities. This will change the game, but will not change the whining and yapping about officiating by guess who? LOSERS!

You've never been to a game where the winning fans have griped about the refs, have you? I have.