Body Checking in the Women's Game

[Scott_TG]

Sweden's women's pro league, the SDHL, has announced that body checking along the boards and some other types of hits will be legal next season in the second division as an experiment with allowing it in the women's game. "North-south open ice hits" will be among the type of hits thay remain a penalty.

An article I read the person speaking for the league mentioned how they've been trying to address this via the IIHF in recent years and are moving forward alone. They also mentioned that physicality was up last season while concussion fell.

Could this spread to NCAA hockey? Would it have to be allowed at the IIHF level to consider it or would the NCAA be willing to institute it on their own.

How would checking affect women's hockey in North America? Would it make it more popular with the audience? Would it add hesitancy for parents to enroll their daughters at the youth level to cancel any audience popularity out? How soon after body checking is legalized would we see it affect the style of play and the profile of players recruited?

I've seen players with opposing opinions. A few years ago a former Plattsburgh forward went viral among the hockey circle on Twitter when that player tweeted about how they wanted to check in girls hockey like they did when playing with boys.

But prior to that when I did a campus radio show I interviewed one of the Cardinals top defenders who did play physically and when I asked her opinion on body checking she said she didn't think she would be playing if it was allowed in the women's game.

 

[ARM]

It seems like we hear less about concussions in the women's game over the last five years or so, but that might be because so little official information is provided about injuries at all. Teams barely say players are injured. When they do, it is something misleading/unhelpful, like players being out on day-to-day basis right up until it is announced that they are retiring from the sport due to injury.

 

[Lindsay]

I think it’s an interesting development for the SDHL league. Perhaps things won’t change much other than to make reffing easier. That is my hope.

I’m glad there’s no open ice hitting, wouldn’t want that. IIHF is nowhere near ready for any hitting, and even if they were I personally still wouldn’t want open ice hitting. I think the Canadians game in particular was absolutely beautiful in the Olympics, with the possession and puck movement, at the speed elite women play at. I don’t see hitting making it better.

I’ve been dropping in on NHL playoffs a bit and wow there are a lot of head injuries. Sam Girard in the opening minutes of the Colorado St Louis game injured his head or at least “rang his bell” on a legal play behind the net. His head banged off the glass and then the ice. He got up clutching his head and then was helped off the ice. It is tough to watch this happen to young millionaires, we should be very careful about introducing it to the women’s game - where people are making a tiny fraction of the money.

Parents already worry about enrolling their boys in football....why enhance the same worry to girls hockey? I don’t see this spreading to IIHF or youth hockey for girls.

edit: girard broke his sternum on the play and is out for the rest of the playoffs. He didn’t have the puck on his stick, it was just a guy finishing his check. Proceed with caution SDHL.

 

[Gargoyle]

I would not continue to watch women's hockey if checking is allowed. I enjoy seeing the passing and the play set-up; those aspects of the game almost disappear when checking is involved.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

I would not continue to watch women's hockey if checking is allowed. I enjoy seeing the passing and the play set-up; those aspects of the game almost disappear when checking is involved.

This...

I watch the women's game knowing the the speed and skill level is not up to the men's game but I am ok with that because of just what you say. Play making and goal scoring without the blowing folks up and the ruff stuff that goes with it.

 

[Scott_TG]

I didn't put my personal opinion in the initial post, and it's largely because I'm not sure. I enjoy the game as-is, where defense relies on speed, playmaking, and the ability to handle your stick without committing a penalty. But I also think the no-checking rule plays into patriarchal norms that dictate how women are "supposed" to behave and if women want to change that about their sport I think they should be able to. But I also worry it could be a self-defeating moment, where adding checking adds a real or even just a perceived increase in injuries that sees participation drop and halts the momentum of the sport.

I know not everything can be democratic. There are governing bodies who make decisions about the sport supposedly with the best interest of the sport overall in mind. What I would like to see before any committee takes up the matter would be a survey done of actual players at the high school, collegiate and professional level. Get a representative sample of players in the sport at different levels (and different countries if this is taken up by the IIHF) and see what the players actually believe about checking's place in the women's game.

 

[Timothy A]

No body checking. There will be all these ridiculous reviews for contact to the head from 14 angles that takes 15 minutes to figure out, and then they are 50% wrong anyway. I say take the checking out of the men's game.

 

[Offsides Guy]

I once asked Winny Brodt Brown what she thought of this and her comment was that allowing checking would slow the game down way too much. She was not for it for that reason. I agree with her and what others are suggesting here. I like a fast, free-flowing style of hockey more than one that is slowed down and more disjointed through checking.

 

[D2D]

Agree with the comments here and would add that referees should call blatant body checking, which IS a penalty under current rules.

 

[4and20]

I would not be in favor of body checking in the women's game because I think it would decrease a large number of smaller (either height or size) women from the game when checking was introduced at whatever age. It would be similar to the issue of girls leaving the sport as they get older when playing with boys. When communities started girls only youth programs participation dramatically increased with large number or girls that had quit the game coming back.

Defensive players must be more skilled in the women's game because they can not check. An observation I made about 10-15 years ago was a change to the men's game that followed from the women's game and that was how the women will back into an opponent along the boards that the men's game start using after the women perfected the technique.

 

[KevinJims]

thanks a lot, thats really usefull information! play dragon money casino for more money.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Quite a bit physical contact is already allowed in the Women's Game. The NCAA Rule on Angling:

94.3 Angling - Angling is permissible. Angling is a legal skill used to influence the puck carrier to a place where the player must stop due to a player’s body position. Body contact that occurs as a result of angling is permissible provided the defending player is attempting to play the puck and there has been no overt (blatant) hip, shoulder or arm contact. Legal body contact may occur when a skater makes body contact while angling or using body position against the puck carrier in an attempt to play the puck.


The NCAA Rules on Incidental Contact:

94.4 Incidental Contact - Incidental contact, when two players contact each other or collide unintentionally, may occur. This type of contact is not a penalty for body checking. Examples of incidental contact include:

94.5 Legal Tactics - Players that use the following tactics should not be penalized: • Use of Angling. • Use of Size, Strength and Balance to play the puck. • Use of Body Position to control or gain possession of puck. • No distinct hip, shoulder, arm or stick contact to physically force the opponent off the puck.


And finally, from the newly released Points of Emphasis:

Checking/Body Contact in Women's Ice Hockey The rules committee believes some legal contact is too often penalized without the elements of illegal body checking. Incidental collisions and angling are not body checking. In body contact, there is an action of the player to play the puck, which may result in legal incidental collisions. In body checking the act of the player to physically play the body first and initiate a deliberate collision are forbidden. When body checking is observed by on-ice officials, it should be enforced consistently. The committee added additional guidance to Rule 94 and prepared a focused video for coaches and officials to assist with this emphasis.


So the Defense does have options. They are not being asked to helplessly stand-by while the "skill" players do their thing. Along the same lines, those who want to see "toughness" play a role are not being ignored.

In the Points of Emphasis, we see that the enforcement of the checking rule is actually being narrowed. Maybe we're moving toward the sweet spot? In any event, my feeling is that this adjustment goes far enough.

 

[Scott_TG]

Quite a bit physical contact is already allowed in the Women's Game. The NCAA Rule on Angling:

And finally, from the newly released Points of Emphasis:

Checking/Body Contact in Women's Ice Hockey The rules committee believes some legal contact is too often penalized without the elements of illegal body checking. Incidental collisions and angling are not body checking. In body contact, there is an action of the player to play the puck, which may result in legal incidental collisions. In body checking the act of the player to physically play the body first and initiate a deliberate collision are forbidden. When body checking is observed by on-ice officials, it should be enforced consistently. The committee added additional guidance to Rule 94 and prepared a focused video for coaches and officials to assist with this emphasis.


So the Defense does have options. They are not being asked to helplessly stand-by while the "skill" players do their thing. Along the same lines, those who want to see "toughness" play a role are not being ignored.

In the Points of Emphasis, we see that the enforcement of the checking rule is actually being narrowed. Maybe we're moving toward the sweet spot? In any event, my feeling is that this adjustment goes far enough.

Point of emphasis? So one of two things could happen (or both):

1) Players take advantage of fewer checking calls and play more physically and we see some early injuries.

2) Players take advantage of fewer checking calls and play more physically. As refs tend to do with points of emphasis, they start reverting to how they used to call them midway through the season, and whichever team has been most successful at playing more physically loses a big game when the old standard gets applied.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Point of emphasis? So one of two things could happen (or both):

1) Players take advantage of fewer checking calls and play more physically and we see some early injuries.

Just to make sure my main point was understood: I was arguing AGAINST legalizing checking in the Women's game. My feeling was that while the proponents of checking may have some legitimate points, those points have been adequately addressed by the new rulebook. In other words, there's no need to replicate the Swedish (SDHL) experiment in NCAA play.

I get that you're mostly thinking out loud & keeping an open mind. Obviously that's fine. But reading your posts together, it seems that everyone with an opinion is a bad guy, regardless of what that opinion is! Of course I'm not in favor of more "early injuries." I was searching for a middle ground.

2) Players take advantage of fewer checking calls and play more physically. As refs tend to do with points of emphasis, they start reverting to how they used to call them midway through the season, and whichever team has been most successful at playing more physically loses a big game when the old standard gets applied.

Fair enough. I do agree that when top down changes are attempted, things tend to revert to "the old normal" as the season goes on. And yes, inconsistency in officiating can lead to unfairness, as you describe.

 

[Scott_TG]

I apologize if my tone came off as directed at you. I think your point is clear and I do respect those who think checking shouldn't be allowed in NCAA WIH. I never meant to disrespect you or your personal views on this.

My skepticism is an NCAA committee issuing a "point of emphasis" because whatever is the emphasis the officials tend to over enforce it early then go back to how they've always called it.

I think such an approach works with something like when they decided to get vigilant with too many players on the ice during line changes a few seasons ago. I think using a "point of emphasis" when it comes to body checking and what is or isn't one could end badly.

I think if body checking is ever allowed, for better or for worse, it should be done way in advance so there is adequate time for players to train to do it safely.

 

[pgb-ohio]

I apologize if my tone came off as directed at you. I think your point is clear and I do respect those who think checking shouldn't be allowed in NCAA WIH. I never meant to disrespect you or your personal views on this.

Sorry to be so slow getting back to this thread.

No disrespect was taken. While the checking issue is vexing, I just wanted to emphasize that the rule-makers have good options. Women's D-1 Hockey is great as it is. The tweaks that have been made shouldn't take away any of that greatness. And might just be a small improvement. Or if not, we can tweak again in the other direction.

My skepticism is an NCAA committee issuing a "point of emphasis" because whatever is the emphasis the officials tend to over enforce it early then go back to how they've always called it.

Your skepticism is warranted, as noted in my previous post.

I think such an approach works with something like when they decided to get vigilant with too many players on the ice during line changes a few seasons ago. I think using a "point of emphasis" when it comes to body checking and what is or isn't one could end badly.

I don't anticipate an increase in injuries this season due to the new "interpretation" of the checking rule. I hope I'm not being naive on this. We do need to maintain a laser focus on the issue. If there is any detectable increase in injuries, then we need to take a step back right away -- not wait a full two years for the next rulebook. A desire for more 5x5 play shouldn't compromise player safety.

I think if body checking is ever allowed, for better or for worse, it should be done way in advance so there is adequate time for players to train to do it safely.

Strongly agree.

 

[pgb-ohio]

... I enjoy the game as-is, where defense relies on speed, playmaking, and the ability to handle your stick without committing a penalty. But I also think the no-checking rule plays into patriarchal norms that dictate how women are "supposed" to behave and if women want to change that about their sport I think they should be able to...

Well, if you thought I was promoting "patriarchal norms," I guess would be a little offended by that. (winking emoticon here)

I know not everything can be democratic. There are governing bodies who make decisions about the sport supposedly with the best interest of the sport overall in mind. What I would like to see before any committee takes up the matter would be a survey done of actual players at the high school, collegiate and professional level. Get a representative sample of players in the sport at different levels (and different countries if this is taken up by the IIHF) and see what the players actually believe about checking's place in the women's game.

Such a survey would have a lot of value. If you have an interest, would you mind saying a little more about how such a survey would be designed?

For example: One issue would be size of the responding group. Taking into account all three levels sounds great, but that's a major effort -- one that would raise some real issues with cost & logistics. I wonder if it would possible to identify a smaller target group who have played both with and without the checking rule. Or would that hopelessly skew the results in favor of allowing checking?

 

[TitleIXHockey]

No body checking. There will be all these ridiculous reviews for contact to the head from 14 angles that takes 15 minutes to figure out, and then they are 50% wrong anyway. I say take the checking out of the men's game.

I think the ACTUAL result of the checking rule is that interference actually gets called in the women's game instead of like 5% of the time like in the NHL. The absolute worst thing to watch in hockey is a dump and chase where a pylon defender just squeezes and pins the forward into the boards.

 

[Scott_TG]

Such a survey would have a lot of value. If you have an interest, would you mind saying a little more about how such a survey would be designed?

For example: One issue would be size of the responding group. Taking into account all three levels sounds great, but that's a major effort -- one that would raise some real issues with cost & logistics. I wonder if it would possible to identify a smaller target group who have played both with and without the checking rule. Or would that hopelessly skew the results in favor of allowing checking?

As I said, they would want to survey not only players but also coaches of the different levels and parents of youth players, but just to simplify I am just considering a survey of the players.

I think limiting the survey to girls/women who have played with both checking/no checking would be very limited and I'm not sure it is conducive to building a representative sample of hockey stakeholders overall.

I think whoever is sponsoring such a study (IIHF, Hockey Canada, USA Hockey, etc) should partner with a professional survey firm to help them calculate the appropriate sample size for the confidence interval they want in the result.
If the survey only wants to consider pro, college, and youth hockey they wouldn't need to survey anyone over 35 or so. I know there are some players above that in the pros but statistically they are outliers. USA Hockey doesn't allow checking in boys' hockey until 12 so let's say they design a survey of female hockey players aged 12-35.

Mike Murphy and The Ice Garden published an article about participation growth and with it, they posted raw data from 2017 that indicated there were 82,808 American female players in IIHF-registered leagues that year. If we pretend that number is the full population of players aged 12-35 they would need at least 383 players to respond to have a valid sample size with a 95% confidence interval of American players. In Canada, it was 88,732 in IIHF-registered leagues, and the calculator I used also returned a minimum value of 388. The more respondents over the minimum each country's survey has the more likely it is to be statistically valid.

They would also want to make it a representative sample, so each country’s survey would want to break out the population into age subgroups and geographic subgroups and make sure the respondents they count are proportionate to the original population. If 20% of registered USA players in the whole population are 12-15 they would want that age subset to be 20% of the respondents and not 70% of respondents. If 40% of registered Canada players are from Ontario they would want around 40% of the respondents Canada counts to be from Ontario as opposed to only 5% of respondents counted.

The above is just calculating sampling for players. They would need to figure out similar sampling for coaches and parents.

They would want to largely do the survey electronically with the use of paper limited to postcards with a link or QR code that takes them where to answer online. Though there are paper surveys still in use. Research giant MRI-Simmons still sends a giant booklet to respondents for their in-depth Survey of the American Consumer publication that is used by so many corporations use as a factor in decision-making; so a paper survey isn't out of the question but they are harder and harder to get respondents for.

The surveys could be done by country, with it starting electronically pushed out via email or SMS by the sanctioned hockey orgs to their leagues down to the players. If that push doesn’t get them the sample they need they can use tactics like targeted electronic ads or even volunteer or hired reps showing up in person at hockey showcases and other places likely to have a concentration of eligible respondents with the aforementioned postcards.

As you inferred, the cost of designing and executing the survey would probably be more than the IIHF and other governing bodies would care to spend.

 

[Still Eeyore]

Mike Murphy and The Ice Garden published an article about participation growth and with it, they posted raw data from 2017 that indicated there were 82,808 American female players in IIHF-registered leagues that year. If we pretend that number is the full population of players aged 12-35 they would need at least 383 players to respond to have a valid sample size with a 95% confidence interval of American players. In Canada, it was 88,732 in IIHF-registered leagues, and the calculator I used also returned a minimum value of 388. The more respondents over the minimum each country's survey has the more likely it is to be statistically valid.

This paragraph is not accurate. You can get a 95% confidence interval from any size sample, though if it's extremely small, your CI will be extremely large. The larger the sample, the narrower the CI. The phrase "statistically valid" doesn't have any meaning here. I think that what you are looking for here is the concept of the power of the statistical test, which is defined as the probability that the null hypothesis will be rejected for the sample given that alternative hypothesis is true in the population. The power of a test, and what, exactly, it means is a complicated subject. I'll just leave this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_a_test

There is no "correct" answer for what the power of a test should be, just as there is no "correct" answer for what the confidence interval should be. Whether a survey is statistically valid is not a yes/no question. That can only be assessed for the CI and power that you have selected. We've fetishized a 95% CI, but that really is a mistake. What CI you use should really depend upon the specific questions you are asking and how you plan to use the results.

Always remember, statistics means never having to say that you're certain.