College Hockey...getting way too soft!

[Gurtholfin]

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

I understand what you are saying but some of the hits that have been discussed(the Martin hit and the Gleason hit ) have been pretty boarderline if they were or were not penalties.

Rule 604 Board-Checking

"A minor or a major penalty, at the discretion of the referee based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who body-checks, cross-checks, elbows, charges or trips in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards."

There's the rule (again ). Now explain to me how the Gleason hit was borderline as to whether it was a penalty or not.

Nowhere in that rule does it mention intent or whether or not some dude watching it on TV in a green jersey thinks it's a penalty. The only factor that matters is the last and bolded portion.

The Badger was thrown violently into the boards due to a body check. Unless I'm missing something, that's boarding and a penalty and if the degree of impact is the mitigating factor, it's also a major.

Now, I've shown you facts about why that's a penalty. Show me something other than your personal opinion that it's not.

 

[cg_siouxfan]

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

I think it should be obvious to all by now that this approach to the game has to end. For God's sake, don't you realize how close we came to seeing a player paralyzed for life (or worse) on the ice at Ralph Engelstad Arena? We are extemely lucky it didn't happen..

Like what we thought was going to happen after Bina's injury? How did that work out? Were injuries eliminated? I can't seem to remember.

I'm all for players' safety, but I think when you have guys flying around the ice, competing, playing bodies (which is still legal, right?), you're going to have injuries. Hockey isn't basketball on ice. It's inherently risky.

I think it's great that the leagues are cracking down on dangerous hits, though.

Carry on with all the hysteria, everyone!

 

[Puck Swami]

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

Well hard for me to understand how the ref's didn't see the hit. I mean Martin did have the puck. If they missed it they were negligent imho.I think they had decided to ignore the penalty, ( charging, and hitting to the head) But they will never admit it.

Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBp10hz6rzw

The closest ref to the play (he is standing near the State Farm-ad dasher board as Martin turns up ice )gets turned around as the ref is trying to get out of the way. At the instant of the hit (0:13 of the video and again in slo-mo at 0:33 and 0:43), the ref clearly has his back to the hit - not negligence, just an avoidance move that happens many times in a game.

The second ref is out of the video picture. We don't know what he is or isn't looking at, but it very well could be that he was looking at something else.

The trailing linesman on the same side of the ice is the one who saw the play, and brought it to the ref's attention.

I happened to fly next to an NHL ref last week with over 1,000 games of NHL experience. We got to talking about the whole contact to the head point of emphasis this year at the NHL and NCAA levels. I shared the Martin hit video with him on my computer screen. He looked at the play, the call and the position of the refs (at least that he could see). He said in the NHL, the hit probably would have not been called illegal, because the NHL point of emphasis is more about the blindside hit (T-bone) vs the head on collision where the injured player has his head down. However, he sees the NCAA point of emphasis on CTH as broader, and aimed at injury prevention. NHLers are more skilled players and skate with their heads up more often, while not all college players do, and he agreed with the WCHA's penalty call on the ice as an interpretation of the NCAA rule. He could see the primary ref was turned on the play, and said that it wasn't bad positioning on the ref's part. He was in the right place to make a call, but the play circumstances forced him to turn, which is part of the game. He said the linesman was correct to bring the hit to the refs after the whistle, and he wasn't sure what the second ref was looking at because he was off screen.

 

[lord k]

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

When using the boarding rule as it is written almost every hit could be called boarding. The rule itself pretty much gives the refs a reason to call a penalty for checking too hard. The Gleason hit was with the shoulder no hands or elbows up. They were far enough away from the wall where it shouldn't have been a big deal. I just didn't feel that Gleason should have been thrown out of the game for that hit. It was not a dangerous hit. If the refs felt the hit warranted a penalty it should have been a 2 minute minor. If they start throwing guys out for every single hard hit it will change the game we all love. The game is great because of the combination of skill and physicallity.

 

[Koho]

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

Rule 604 Board-Checking

"A minor or a major penalty, at the discretion of the referee based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who body-checks, cross-checks, elbows, charges or trips in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards."

There's the rule (again ). Now explain to me how the Gleason hit was borderline as to whether it was a penalty or not.

Nowhere in that rule does it mention intent or whether or not some dude watching it on TV in a green jersey thinks it's a penalty. The only factor that matters is the last and bolded portion.

The Badger was thrown violently into the boards due to a body check. Unless I'm missing something, that's boarding and a penalty and if the degree of impact is the mitigating factor, it's also a major.

Now, I've shown you facts about why that's a penalty. Show me something other than your personal opinion that it's not.

Well of course, anyone can quote only part of a rule to make the point they want to make! We all know you chose to leave off the last sentence that reads something like: " If the player getting thrown violently into the boards had his head down prior to the hit (against what every coach in hockey teaches), then he is actually at fault so either no penalty should be called, or an embellishment penalty could be called on him. In other words, he got what he deserved." (Not sure I got the words exactly correct, but I know from reading some of these posts that there must be wording like that.)

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

Well of course anyone can quote only part of a rule to make the point they want to make! We all know you chose to leave off the last sentence that reads something like: " If the player getting thrown violenetly into the boards had his head down prior to the hit (against what every coach in hockey teaches), then he is actually at fault so either no penalty should be called, or an embellshment penalty could be called on him. In other words, he got what he deserved." (Not sure I got the words exactly correct, but I know from reading some of these posts that there must be wording like that.)

Caught that did you?

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

When using the boarding rule as it is written almost every hit could be called boarding. The rule itself pretty much gives the refs a reason to call a penalty for checking too hard. The Gleason hit was with the shoulder no hands or elbows up. They were far enough away from the wall where it shouldn't have been a big deal. I just didn't feel that Gleason should have been thrown out of the game for that hit. It was not a dangerous hit. If the refs felt the hit warranted a penalty it should have been a 2 minute minor. If they start throwing guys out for every single hard hit it will change the game we all love. The game is great because of the combination of skill and physicallity.

WRONG again!

The boarding rule was written for just this sort of play. The fact that the person being hit was several feet from the wall is exactly why it's boarding. You cannot be thrown violently into the boards if you are next to the boards.

And a 2? Did you miss the FACT that the Badger player's head was the main part that was THROWN into the boards.

Try to understand the rule before you comment on it.

Boarding does not cover hard checks when the player being checked is adjacent to the boards.

I bet you'll still argue though...

 

[Puck Swami]

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

Here is the wording from this year's NCAA rule book on the point of emphasis on:

Contact to the Head

This is an important safety issue and the committee is concerned about
some violent contact that has occurred in the game and caused injury. To
make this rule clearer, any time a player targets the head or neck area of
an opponent, it must be a major penalty and a game misconduct penalty at
a minimum. This rule is not intended to cover incidental contact or contact
with the head that occurs that should be a minor penalty (e.g., unintentional
high stick, body check where the contact is initiated at the shoulder or torso,
but the follow through makes some contact with the head). Clear direction
is being provided here to assist officials, coaches and players with this rule.
The committee expects a heightened awareness to direct contact to head,
but it should be noted that many contact to the head fouls in previous seasons
that were minor penalties should remain minor penalties (e.g., an incidental
high sticking foul would remain a minor for high sticking).

The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility
remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and
neck area of an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the
player’s head and neck area must be penalized with a major penalty and
a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an
unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being
penalized under this rule.

Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying
this rule. These are intended as guidance and include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• A player that has just released a shot or pass;
• A player that delivers a late hit;
• A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder
to contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
• A player that extends the body and targets the opponent’s head or
neck area.
• A player that leaves the skates or launches in order to deliver a blow
to the head or neck area of the opposing player.
• A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area
(e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).

As additional guidance, when the initial force of the contact is a shoulder
to the body of the opponent and slides up to the head or neck area, this is not
classified as contact to the head. This type of action may still be penalized,
at the referee’s discretion, as another penalty (e.g., charging, roughing,
elbowing, etc.).


---------------------------

The key words in my mind are:

The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility
remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and
neck area of an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the
player’s head and neck area must be penalized with a major penalty and
a game misconduct or disqualification.

This above wording clarfies, at least in my mind that just because a player has his head down, the hitting player no longer gets a free pass. The hitting player is still responsible for not popping him in the head, which may be diffferent from the way the NHL calls it.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

• A player that has just released a shot or pass;
• A player that delivers a late hit;
• A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder
to contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
• A player that extends the body and targets the opponent’s head or
neck area.
• A player that leaves the skates or launches in order to deliver a blow
to the head or neck area of the opposing player.
• A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area
(e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).

I'm thinking that this portion was accidentally added to the Sioux's playbook under game tactics.

 

[cg_siouxfan]

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

I love how you people get so worked up every time the Sioux deliver an illegal hit.

I wonder how much you miss that goes on with other teams, because you're not obsessed with those other teams.

Carter Rowney didn't play last weekend because he took an elbow to the head against Denver, but Sioux fans didn't whine about it for 4 days straight.

Keep spinning your wheels and hating, though. It's your loss.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

I love how you people get so worked up every time the Sioux deliver an illegal hit.

I wonder how much you miss that goes on with other teams, because you're not obsessed with those other teams.

Carter Rowney didn't play last weekend because he took an elbow to the head against Denver, but Sioux fans didn't whine about it for 4 days straight.

Keep spinning your wheels and hating, though. It's your loss.

I love how YOU people always try to defend or explain away every time the Sioux deliver an illegal hit.

These discussions wouldn't happen in a vacuum. Own it and everyone would move on.

 

[cg_siouxfan]

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

I love how YOU people always try to defend or explain away every time the Sioux deliver an illegal hit.

These discussions wouldn't happen in a vacuum. Own it and everyone would move on.

Keep hating.

Sorry the Sioux swept your Badgers at home. Maybe one day you will get over it.

 

[cross cheque]

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

I love how YOU people always try to defend or explain away every time the Sioux deliver an illegal hit.

These discussions wouldn't happen in a vacuum. Own it and everyone would move on.

Gleason's hit was boarding, Hextall's hit was CTH, and Malone's hit was CTH and I wouldn't be surprised or outraged if Gleason and Hextall got 1 game suspensions. UND is a rough team that plays full tilt and sometimes that bites us in the backside but hey give and take.

At this point in this season I am more worried about Jessie Martin living a lifestyle that he deserves and a speedy recovery, but that's just me and I'm only one rube on a neverending forum of banter.

 

[lord k]

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

His head was thrown into the wall because he spun. He was checked from the side. I know boarding is for when the players are not up against the wall but they were far enough away from it where Gleason should not have been worried about getting a boarding penalty. They way you are reading it, if a guy is checked at center ice and slides head first into the boards there should be a boarding penalty called.

I have already stated that if the refs felt the need for a 2 minute penalty than fine. There was no contact to the head concerning the hit. A player should only be ejected for doing something that is malicious or serious intent to injure. The Gleason hit was neither. It was a hard hit but I just don't feel it warranted an ejection.

 

[PCM]

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

Like what we thought was going to happen after Bina's injury? How did that work out? Were injuries eliminated?

I don't recall anyone ever saying that all hockey injuries would be eliminated as a result of the Bina incident. Can you provide a link?

I'm all for players' safety, but I think when you have guys flying around the ice, competing, playing bodies (which is still legal, right?), you're going to have injuries. Hockey isn't basketball on ice. It's inherently risky.

Of course it is. Nobody -- including me -- is advocating taking physical contact out of hockey. Nor is anyone trying to eliminate all injuries from hockey. However, we do know that certain types of hits on certain areas of the ice are inherently dangerous because they can cause serious injuries. I think hockey needs to do whatever it can to minimize those types of hits.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

His head was thrown into the wall because he spun. He was checked from the side. I know boarding is for when the players are not up against the wall but they were far enough away from it where Gleason should not have been worried about getting a boarding penalty. They way you are reading it, if a guy is checked at center ice and slides head first into the boards there should be a boarding penalty called.

I'm not reading it any other way than it's written. And, again , you're wrong. The Badger player was right next to the net, plenty close enough that he can be thrown into the boards.

You say:

"His head was thrown into the wall because he spun. He was checked from the side."

Neither of those affect whether or not it's boarding. Re-read the rule. It's really quite straight forward.


And if you know what boarding is for, as you say, why did you misinterpret it in an earlier post?

Keep arguing though. I'm bored at work and I've got all day.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

Keep hating.

Sorry the Sioux swept your Badgers at home. Maybe one day you will get over it.

I've been a Badger fan for almost 30 years. I've seen us sweep you and you sweep us. It's all just a big circle and will happen again to both. I was over it halfway through the game on Saturday.

We're young and played like it and deserved to be swept.

NEXT!

 

[PCM]

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

This above wording clarfies, at least in my mind that just because a player has his head down, the hitting player no longer gets a free pass. The hitting player is still responsible for not popping him in the head, which may be diffferent from the way the NHL calls it.

Dean Blais used to say that he wanted his players to play on the edge without going over the edge. I think the NCAA language redefines where the edge is. What was once allowable is no more. Some have yet to figure that out.

 

[lord k]

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

I have said it a couple of times now. If the wanted to call a 2 minute penalty I would have been ok with that. Do you really feel that Gleason should have been ejected for the hit? Take off your badger jersey for a minute. Not only was he ejected he is in danger of getting a stiffer penalty from the wcha.

Boarding is not as black and white as you make it sound with the proper definition. It is one of the most judgemental calls a ref can make. 2 years ago there may have been 2 boarding calls a season. Now there is at least one every game.

 

[PCM]

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

I have said it a couple of times now. If the wanted to call a 2 minute penalty I would have been ok with that. Do you really feel that Gleason should have been ejected for the hit?

Yes.