College Hockey...getting way too soft!

[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.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

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

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

Yes. It's called every game that North Dakota wins.

Osorojo is a great hockey mind though. I can't believe coaches have never thought about working on their power play! How could they not devote large portions of their practice time to such a key portion of a game?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Yes. It's called every game that North Dakota wins.

Osorojo is a great hockey mind though. I can't believe coaches have never thought about working on their power play! How could they not devote large portions of their practice time to such a key portion of a game?

I know, seriously! Maybe these hockey programs should also hire an assistant coach responsible for handling the power play and other offensive specialties.

 

[Dirty]

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

Yes. It's called every game that North Dakota wins.

Osorojo is a great hockey mind though. I can't believe coaches have never thought about working on their power play! How could they not devote large portions of their practice time to such a key portion of a game?

I didn't say one thing about the refs Saturday night you stupid b^tchopotamus!

 

[Osorojo]

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

Runninwiththedogs:

Funny, the losers who kvetch about officiating always blame the referees, not their power play or the other team's power play. I suspect they are unaware of the 88% winning advantage of the team which scored the most power play goals last weekend. Speaking of great hockey minds, I'll bet you were ignorant of the same fact.

 

[unofan]

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!

Yeah, but normally the better team will score more goals than the other team in any given situation; that's pretty much why they're the better team - they achieve their objective more often. I bet 88% of winning teams scored more even strength goals than their opponents, too.

Now if 88% of the teams take fewer penalties than their opponents, that'd be closer to being meaningful.

 

[Dirty]

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

I think the most important thing to happen here is that Osorojo looked up and compiled these stats himself. This is a big day for him. Everyone should congratulate him.

 

[manurespreader]

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

I guess I misunderstand the charging rule as written. I always thought that if a player took strides as he was coming toward the checkee, that was the definition of charging. Now I find out from this thread that coaches teach a player to take strides. hmmm...I wonder which coaches that might be.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

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

Runninwiththedogs:

Funny, the losers who kvetch about officiating always blame the referees, not their power play or the other team's power play. I suspect they are unaware of the 88% winning advantage of the team which scored the most power play goals last weekend. Speaking of great hockey minds, I'll bet you were ignorant of the same fact.

Sorry, I wouldn't know, my team has only lost one game and they got their butts kicked, refs or no refs.

Yes, I was ignorant of that fact. However, I question whether this fact is actually a fact, or if you made it up. You have shown no willingness to do your own research in the past so I would like to see you show your work.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Yeah, but normally the better team will score more goals than the other team in any given situation; that's pretty much why they're the better team - they achieve their objective more often. I bet 88% of winning teams scored more even strength goals than their opponents, too.

Now if 88% of the teams take fewer penalties than their opponents, that'd be closer to being meaningful.

I'll take that bet. Name your stakes. Of course, we are using the results of last weekend's DI games which I specified, (where one team scored more power play goals than the other) not games since 1950, or games in your state or your league. Let me know the size of the wager you are willing to make.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

I think the most important thing to happen here is that Osorojo looked up and compiled these stats himself. This is a big day for him. Everyone should congratulate him.

I'm stunned as well. I thought the chances of that were about as good as you getting an AIC jersey...

 

[dggoddard]

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

The NCAA spends $12 Million per year to insure all its athletes against catastrophic injuries. So far this year there has been a Rutgers football player paralyzed and Jesse Martin's injury.

The coaches will never clean up college hockey or football on their own, but one day an insurance company is going to say "We won't insure NCAA hockey and/or football." Suddenly the rules will change.

 

[bothman]

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

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.

Apologies for this long post, but the quoted post above really touched a nerve.

Let's be very clear about the Malone / Martin incident. Martin didn't lower his head at the last minute (this issue is being widely discussed at the NFL right now when a hit to the head occurs when the offensive player lowers his head at the last minute and the defensive player making the hit has already left his feet and can't adjust on the fly). That is not the situation here.

Martin's head was down and was down for a prolonged period - long before Malone made the decision to drive his body / elbow / shoulder into and through Martin's head which I'm sure in hindsight, Malone realizes now was a very poor and short-sighted decision....one that he will probably be spending the rest of his life thinking about.

Using the logic above, if a 6'5'' player does not raise his elbows or shoulders and runs into a player who is 5'3'' - and as a result, the 5'3'' guy takes a shoulder square on the chin and gets his bell rung....you are calling that a legal hit?

I want every NCAA hockey player to be indoctrinated with the cause and effect of the decisions they make (especially the reckless decisions such as the one Malone perpetrated)

Again, using my drunk driving analogy, there are many times people choose to get behind the wheel (when they shouldn't) and they arrive home safely without hurting themsleves or anyone else. Does that make that decision to get behind the wheel the right decision?

Too many times in NCAA hockey, we see plenty of hits that are ill-timed and reckless...where the player that was checked gets up and walks away unscathed. I want to see these hits penalized much more severely with an automatic game DQ and a suspension of some defined time period. I want players to be thinking about this cause and effect everytime they see a player in a compromised position as they go to check them. It doesn't take a bone-rattling and potential-paralyzing hit to free the puck in this situation. The juice is not worth the squeeze - I bet that Brad Malone is in the midst of some tough living right now as a result.

For those of us that have children, and have taken the time to think about the series of events that led to Martin potentially being paralyzed....and then we insert our own son/daughter into that series of events....if any of us could even fathom to write what you just did (and even begin to imply that the course of events that unfolded was in any way Martin's fault), than shame on us first as parents, and second as hockey fans. At the end of the day, regardless of the school, the name of the jersey, or the level of play - that kid lying still on the ice because of a reckless decision is someone's son or daughter. At the NHL level it is likely someone's father. It isn't much fun to think about it in that context, is it?

 

[sbkbghockey]

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

I can only speak of the games I have watched, but it appears to me that the refs are calling 5-minute majors every time a player gets checked hard and falls to the ice. (on at least 1 instance, there was NO penalty even called until the ref saw the player was hurt). I agree that is some cases, the hits are HIGH and there is definite contact to the head, but in many cases it's not.

1) Malone gets a major with game DQ for a hit where the Denver player clearly has his head down which is WHY he was injured. I feel bad that the DU player was injured but it's NOT Malone's fault. "Stick down..head UP!" We learn that in pee-wee hockey!

2) Last nite with the Sioux playing Wisco, there were 2 major's called on UND. Gleason creamed a Badger as he was coming around the net and it was clearly to the shoulder which caused the Badger player to hit the boards very hard..but why is a clean check like that a major? It wasn't from behind. The player was injured because again..he had his head down and when Gleason hit him he spun and hit his head against the boards. I can see a penalty called, but a major? Watch the replay, it was a hard yet clean hit. The other major called was once again a player that had his head down and was hit with shoulder/elbow by the Sioux player. What is a player supposed to do when he's about to check a guy who has his head down at waist level? Players are taught/coached to hit a player, especially when the offensive player has their head down! These would not be called majors and possibly not even a penalty in any other upper leagues.

I understand that the NCAA is trying to crack-down on "dirty" hits, but come on! Let the guys play, and if you take away the ability for players to hit guys who can't keep their heads up this league is going to become softer than it already is! On top of that, this rule is NOT doing the players any favors. If they can get away with having their head down in college and then turn pro and play the same way..they will surely get injured even worse by a hard-hitting pro!

I'm sure there must be some other "non-dirty" hits with other teams/players involved with other NCAA teams. Has anyone else witnessed this? There's always 2 sides to any argument/opinion, so I want to hear how others feel about this.

LET THE INSULTS FLY! BUT HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME INTELLIGENT POSTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

I happened to have seen all of those, the thing that bothers me about the Malone hit, the refs didn't call a penalty during 10 mins Martin was receiving medical care laying in the corner, not til after the meds called for the neck brace and stretcher did they give Malone the major penalty. It was a clean hit but may have been a change depending on the exact place he started on the ice, all the tv angles looked like he was simply pinching in from the Blue line. Coach G for Denver later said the hit was clean and there was no intent to hurt Martin. Also Martin was skating forward but looking down and to his left for a place to pass the puck, nowhere near the direction Malone was coming from.

Gleason's hit was the absolute worst BS call I've seen in a long time , esp. with such a big penalty that could have drastically affected the outcome of the game if the Badgers executed on the PP. The Gleason hit was shoulder to shoulder and Gleason takes a few extra steps to get fully parallel to Simonelli before hitting him.

The second major in that WIS-UND game was head contact so I could see why it was called under the current rules. but Marray had his head down, leaning forward to reach the puck, not looking for Fighting Sioux players) (a known hard-hitting team).

There has to be some responsibility to players that are getting hit just as there are currently with the players hitting.

 

[dggoddard]

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

I happened to have seen all of those, the thing that bothers me about the Malone hit, the refs didn't call a penalty during 10 mins Martin was receiving medical care laying in the corner, not til after the meds called for the neck brace and stretcher did they give Malone the major penalty. It was a clean hit but may have been a change depending on the exact place he started on the ice, all the tv angles looked like he was simply pinching in from the Blue line. Coach G for Denver later said the hit was clean and there was no intent to hurt Martin. Also Martin was skating forward but looking down and to his left for a place to pass the puck, nowhere near the direction Malone was coming from..

One of the linesmen saw the penalty but under the four ref system, he can't stop play. Once one of the two refs stopped play, they conferred and the penalty was called.

Gwozdecky said the collision was not a legal hit.

http://letsgodu.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-gwozdecky-press-conference.html

 

[Happy]

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

I happened to have seen all of those, the thing that bothers me about the Malone hit, the refs didn't call a penalty during 10 mins Martin was receiving medical care laying in the corner, not til after the meds called for the neck brace and stretcher did they give Malone the major penalty. It was a clean hit but may have been a change depending on the exact place he started on the ice, all the tv angles looked like he was simply pinching in from the Blue line. Coach G for Denver later said the hit was clean and there was no intent to hurt Martin. Also Martin was skating forward but looking down and to his left for a place to pass the puck, nowhere near the direction Malone was coming from.

Gleason's hit was the absolute worst BS call I've seen in a long time , esp. with such a big penalty that could have drastically affected the outcome of the game if the Badgers executed on the PP. The Gleason hit was shoulder to shoulder and Gleason takes a few extra steps to get fully parallel to Simonelli before hitting him.

The second major in that WIS-UND game was head contact so I could see why it was called under the current rules. but Marray had his head down, leaning forward to reach the puck, not looking for Fighting Sioux players) (a known hard-hitting team).

There has to be some responsibility to players that are getting hit just as there are currently with the players hitting.

So, explain to me what secret signals the ref was sending you that you know this info? Really, did you read the ref's mind, or are you full of crap? or did the ref email you, twitter you, are put it on your facebook page? I want to know, cause it would be handy for the rest of us to have this inside information every time a UND player cripples someone.