NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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'll flip that around. Why do women need to play the exact same game that men do? I like the fact that sports are different. If I want to watch baseball, I can. If I want to watch hockey with checking, I can. As it happens, I prefer watching no-check hockey and the way things are now, I can watch high level competitive no-check. I can watch high level, competitive softball.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'm all for de-segregating sports based on sex wherever possible (bowling, curling, skiing to name a few). If you banned all checking/fighting in both men's and women's hockey period, I think there would be some great crosssover women's players into the NHL, and even moreso at the college level.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'll flip that around. Why do women need to play the exact same game that men do? I like the fact that sports are different. If I want to watch baseball, I can. If I want to watch hockey with checking, I can. As it happens, I prefer watching no-check hockey and the way things are now, I can watch high level competitive no-check. I can watch high level, competitive softball.

But what if you want to watch women's hockey with checking, or men's hockey (at a high level) without checking? Why are the women the ones automatically relegated to the "safer" version of the sport? Why do women's lacrosse players wear safety goggles but men don't?


Powers &8^]

 

[pokechecker]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

the one rule change I'd like to see is to get rid of the "Ohio State Win"

that's where a team is awarded 3 points for an overtime win
if you can't beat your opponent in the allotted time, it's a tie
shoot outs may be the answer for the average brainless fan in the NHL who doesn't really go to watch a hockey game (they go to an event)
I know this is more of a league thing, the NCAA doesn't use it

 

[123kidd]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

The NCAA does use it, in the DIII 3rd place game if needed.

 

[ARM]

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?

No, they aren't weak and fragile. But would adding checking to the women's game improve it? I'm not in favor of plowing up the golf course that is women's NCAA hockey just so TTT's acquaintances might find it worthy of their time. I love the game the way it is. I like that players can demonstrate their skill with the puck, and IMO, adding more contact creates a game that values size and strength more so than speed and skill. I don't see the game as broken, so I'm not looking for ways to fix it.

I also have two reasons why I think adding checking would be bad for the NCAA women's game. I see many of the players close up off the ice. They are very well-conditioned athletes. However, many of them have necks that look like the neck on the girl next door. I'm not sure that physiologically their necks work as well at absorbing the force of a collision and protecting the brain as the necks of their male counterparts. My guess is that it may play a role in the frequency of concussions suffered by college-age women hockey players. I think the frequency of concussions are a big threat to the women's game. Not only do they cause lost seasons and force a premature end to careers, they severely disrupt all facets of the lives of the victims. My opinion is that more contact will cause more concussions, not fewer. Yes, there is a camp that thinks that it will improve the situation because players will be more inclined to keep their heads up. I've seen many concussions suffered on plays that have nothing to do with heads being up or down.

As another poster said earlier, the referees struggle with calling penalties as it is. Increasing the amount of contact is likely to force more decisions on a group of officials that are often overmatched as it is. Making body checking legal won't make these decisions go away. Was that hit a charge? Was it from behind? Was an elbow involved? Did the player checked even have the puck?

I watched some men's games this season that I thought were boring as heck. Maybe the men's game should be looking at ways to more closely resemble that of the women, because I don't think that it is always perfect in terms of fan appeal. They have faster athletes with supposedly better hands than the women, but in some games, almost nothing gets accomplished offensively.

It is impossible to please everyone, so I say we don't worry too much about TTT's buddies' opinions.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

IMO, adding more contact creates a game that values size and strength more so than speed and skill.

I don't know, BC's little guys have done pretty well over the years.

It is impossible to please everyone, so I say we don't worry too much about TTT's buddies' opinions.

Come on, you've never had someone say to you "But they don't check?! Pffff it's not even hockey!" I'm not saying they're right -- they're not -- but don't pretend the perception isn't there that the sport is second class because they aren't allowed to play by the same rules as the men.

I also don't think that their perception is what matters. But nonetheless I don't think adding checking would be detriment to the game. The skill level has progressed to a point where it wouldn't slow things down.

Anyway -- I totally see both sides of this debate, I don't have a problem with either opinion. There are perfectly reasonable pros and cons to both. I do enjoy the women's game the way it is.

Oh and as for overtime -- 4v4 for 10 minutes and then a tie. It's crazy entertaining, is actual hockey, and will give you a winner a pretty significant chunk of the time.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I see many of the players close up off the ice. They are very well-conditioned athletes. However, many of them have necks that look like the neck on the girl next door. I'm not sure that physiologically their necks work as well at absorbing the force of a collision and protecting the brain as the necks of their male counterparts. My guess is that it may play a role in the frequency of concussions suffered by college-age women hockey players.

Err... that's a pretty touchy road you're choosing to go down.

 

[ARM]

Come on, you've never had someone say to you "But they don't check?! Pffff it's not even hockey!"

Sure. I've been exposed to that opinion many times, and it almost always originates from someone who has never watched a women's game, so I don't put much stock in it. I'm just surprised that you do.

Err... that's a pretty touchy road you're choosing to go down.

Just physics, based on shock absorption. There is a reason that car suspensions use heavier springs than ball-point pens. You're probably right though, that women could bulk up their necks to look like linebackers so that the people who have no intention of watching their games would have to think up a new reason to not attend.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Come on, you've never had someone say to you "But they don't check?! Pffff it's not even hockey!" I'm not saying they're right -- they're not -- but don't pretend the perception isn't there that the sport is second class because they aren't allowed to play by the same rules as the men.

That's the excuse but I suspect it isn't the real reason they don't watch women's hockey.

 

[FireKnight]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I don't think the women's game has lost anything by not allowing body checking along the boards. In fact, to the untrained eye, I'd bet that most don't even realize the difference. The thing I find not in the best interest of the game is the open ice hits. Hockey is supposed to be a battle for the puck and a battle for position in an attempt to achieve the ultimate goal of putting the puck in the net. If a speed player is coming at you, a physical defenseman, on open ice, you have the choice of taking a penalty or letting them skate by. It puts the defense at a distinct disadvantage. The number of injuries on open ice hits is pretty insignificant in the men's game, unless they are hits that are otherwise prohibited by the rules. I would like to see clean open ice hits to be allowed.

 

[zoofer]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Just to clarify, I'm not in favor of checking, let alone more of it...I would like the contact that there is to be allowed....D2D maybe right and the refs can't keep up with the game as is but I don't like every time girls collided for their to be a penalty, for either contact or interference...I'm not advocating for anything more than letting the women's game flow like the men's where contact doesn't mean a whistle....
Good conversation here Gents!

 

[puckluck39]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Timothy A. Really?

"I'm all for de-segregating sports based on sex wherever possible (bowling, curling, skiing to name a few). If you banned all checking/fighting in both men's and women's hockey period, I think there would be some great crosssover women's players into the NHL, and even moreso at the college level."

I hope you are not serious about this statement of crossover women's players into the NHL and college. This has to be the craziest thing I have read on this forum. I had to join just to comment on it.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'm not advocating for anything more than letting the women's game flow like the men's where contact doesn't mean a whistle....

That's pretty well-stated. I like this. Granted they do allow some contact but it's up to the referee in a given game to determine how much contact they are going to allow. Someone mentioned that it's a little more lenient in the CWHL, I haven't been to a game to notice.

You're probably right though, that women could bulk up their necks to look like linebackers so that the people who have no intention of watching their games would have to think up a new reason to not attend.

Come on ARM you know I never said nor implied that. Bit of a cheap shot I think.

As for your opinion on the physiology thing, when you have women playing with women, they are all roughly the same size as their opponents, just like in men's hockey. So I don't think it's much of a factor. Not saying I'm right -- I'm no doctor -- but just doesn't seem to matter because everyone on the ice is proportionally the same size.*

*Chara vs. Gaudreau differences excepted

Good conversation here Gents!

Yes, absolutely!

Here's a question I'll pose, in a different way: Should open-ice checking be made illegal in men's hockey? That's the only real difference to the women's game, right?

 

[jumbodaddy77]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It's interesting that when it comes to the question of checking in girl's/women's hockey, some people gravitate toward gender-equity, while others focus on player safety, and still others consider fan interest. Obviously, these are all important considerations. However, I'd be really interested to learn more about what the women would choose. It's their game after all. If we were able to survey the US/Canada Olympians what do you think they'd prefer? What about D1 players? If any current high-level players have a moment to kill, I'd love to hear what you think about adding checking to the game. My hunch is that when it comes to sports like softball, lacrosse, and others, the vast majority of high-level players would reply that they love their sport more or less as is. I'm less sure about big-time womens hockey players.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It's interesting that when it comes to the question of checking in girl's/women's hockey, some people gravitate toward gender-equity, while others focus on player safety, and still others consider fan interest. Obviously, these are all important considerations. However, I'd be really interested to learn more about what the women would choose. It's their game after all. If we were able to survey the US/Canada Olympians what do you think they'd prefer? What about D1 players? If any current high-level players have a moment to kill, I'd love to hear what you think about adding checking to the game. My hunch is that when it comes to sports like softball, lacrosse, and others, the vast majority of high-level players would reply that they love their sport more or less as is. I'm less sure about big-time womens hockey players.

That's a good question. It would be really interesting, especially if you were able to poll a bit more about their time in the sport as well -- particularly those who played on boys' teams growing up.

I would guess you'd see something of a 50/50 split. But I'm totally pulling that guess out of nowhere.

I did ask one former player and her response was she didn't think checking should be made legal, her reason being "It would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."

I'll ask a few more that I know.

EDIT -- Running tally:

For (4):
--"Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"
--"I would be a fan of it. I wasn't super skilled so it would have been to my benefit."
--"Sure... Probably lead to less slashing"
--"You should know my opinion from how often I was in the box. I think it should totally be legal!"

Against (2):
--"I don't think they should do it. It would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."
--"No. Too hard on the female body..we don't have testosterone pumping through us to keep us going"

 

[Rightnut]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

That's a good question. It would be really interesting, especially if you were able to poll a bit more about their time in the sport as well -- particularly those who played on boys' teams growing up.

I would guess you'd see something of a split. But I'm totally pulling that guess out of nowhere.

I did ask one former player and her response was she didn't think checking should be made legal, her reason being "it would change the dynamic of our game. Everyone has a different opinion but I would say no."

EDIT: Asked another former player who played boys' hockey growing up and her response was "Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"

I'll ask a few more that I know.

I agree that its the players who should decide this question - if it was ever really asked- which is unlikely. My bet is that those players who grew up playing boys' hockey into the checking levels would be in favor of checking/more contact and the majority of those who played mainly girls hockey would choose the current rules. Either way, its a great debate. What I find disturbing, and it was alluded to earlier, is that the default for female sports is the "safer" or no contact form of the sport. If its girl on girl or woman on woman, why can't they play by the same rules without modification? I understand the argument that some make that they are in fact "different sports" but they are not really, they are modifications of the original to allow for females to play. Girls lacrosse is a complete joke. Its unwatchable. My hockey playing D plays girls lacrosse and says its terrible. Why can't they put the pads on and play more like the boys? I think this day in age they should allow the women to play by the real rules without modification, or at least offer both options. Why can't their be a parallel girls/women's leagues that allow checking or a girls lax league where they wear the pads and whack the crap out of each other?

 

[wwhyte]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

--"Do you even really have to ask me? haha I'm all for it"

Kelli Stack to thread!

 

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Timothy A. Really?

"I'm all for de-segregating sports based on sex wherever possible (bowling, curling, skiing to name a few). If you banned all checking/fighting in both men's and women's hockey period, I think there would be some great crosssover women's players into the NHL, and even moreso at the college level."

I hope you are not serious about this statement of crossover women's players into the NHL and college. This has to be the craziest thing I have read on this forum. I had to join just to comment on it.

Why is it so crazy? Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could have played men's college hockey if it was no check. I also think Vetter and Rigsby could also crossover, but checking and goaltending has no issue. Why couldn't Knight play in the NHL if it was no check? I'm only using Knight because I am very familiar with her, there may be some other players who could also.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

As for your opinion on the physiology thing, when you have women playing with women, they are all roughly the same size as their opponents, just like in men's hockey. So I don't think it's much of a factor. Not saying I'm right -- I'm no doctor -- but just doesn't seem to matter because everyone on the ice is proportionally the same size.*

Whether or not it's a question of physiology (I suspect that it is but it's not my field) women's ice hockey already has the highest concussion rate of any NCAA sport. So there is something going on here.