Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread
With respect to checking, I don't disagree with the majority. Nonetheless, I'm with TTT and would vote to let them check. I know it's a grey area, but checking is not the same as "fighting/rough play" (in Pokechecker's words). No one wants fighting in women's hockey (or men's college hockey for that matter), but there's already plenty of "rough play" in both. Second, it's less about the rules than the way the game is called. I've watched a fair bit of D1 women's hockey and it seems to me that checking is already allowed along the boards and in front of the net. (The way that boarding, charging, etc. are called may be different, but the rules aren't.) So, the main differences between men's/women's college hockey at the moment are open ice hits and hip checks and I'd be in favor of both.
More important is the question of why (if at all) sports need to be modified for girls/women? Are they so weak and fragile that they need different rules? Should girls not play baseball because they need a bigger ball to hit and underhanded throws (and thus softball)? Should girls lacrosse be non-checking with no helmets and different rules? It's baloney. Play the sport girl or boy. Girls don't need things modified anymore--they want to compete. Checking in boys hockey will continue to be introduced at later and later ages. The women should meet them in the middle and make the spot the same for both. I'd add open ice checking for Tier 1 girls 16U and up, but not for Tier 2 or any age group below 16U.
I'm sure I'm wrong. I just bristle at the different rules for different genders status-quo. This is especially true when the girl's/women's hockey I see is so highly competitive and physical already.
I think your argument that not allowing checking is sexist is specious. I’ve played softball (at least until the team manager told me next year I only had to bring the beer and a clipboard for scoring) and I didn’t feel unmanly doing so. There’s probably a dozen indoor ice sheets within a couple of miles of my home, and you can walk into most of them of an evening and watch a hockey game between men in which checking is not allowed. Most of them are former HS or college players and I wouldn’t call any of them girly men (to quote SNL). Heck, the NL is the only league anywhere in baseball that doesn’t allow the DH. And you even acknowledge in your post that rules are different for different age groups, regardless of sport.
In my mind, there’s three kinds of rules. The first set are rules that define the sport: objectives, equipment, layout of the playing field/surface, scoring, length of play, etc. The second type are rules that maintain a competitive balance: size of goalie pads, curve of the sticks, icing, off sides, that sort of thing. The third set of rules are those set up to protect the players and observers: helmets, face masks, nets above the glass, prohibitions on using the stick as a weapon, you know the list.
So what is checking in the scheme of things? Does it define the sport of hockey? Probably not, since on any given day some very large percentage of those playing that day (80%?) are prohibited from checking. Does it provide competitive balance? Again, probably not (same as previous). Does it protect players and observers? No, quite the contrary. Actually, it is an anachronism, much like having the pitcher hit in baseball, or wearing leather helmets in football, or… well, pick your sport, they all have them. I know that as an old timer I’m required to grumble about change. But I am a big fan of change that makes things better, and I think the women’s game is showing us how fun hockey can be. Checking would be a step backwards, albeit “more traditional”.
