NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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.

Bingo! I think there is something to ARM's theory. There are many more violent collisions in men's hockey than women's, but women seem to more concussion-prone.

 

[puckluck39]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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.

I disagree that Hillary Knight and Megan Duggan could of played Men's Division 1 Hockey. I am not saying that they are not great players. They are just at too big of a competitive disadvantage due to physiological differences between men and women. The speed is at an entirely different level in the men's game.

Past Women's USA Olympic teams have played against average MN high school teams to prepare for the olympics. These were competitive games.

There is zero chance that Knight could play in the NHL if it was no check.

I view this forum because I enjoy women's hockey. I also enjoy men's hockey, but realize that the speed and skill of men's and women's hockey are at completely different levels.

 

[UCONN FAN]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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.

There is No WAY the could even play DI let alone in the NHL!!! They would struggle on a top level DIII team. Both great players but not even close....Check or no check.

 

[ARM]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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

You started it. I'm not sure what you meant then, as you implied that I was being sexist, when my only objective is that I don't want to see an increase in concussions. I see that as a far greater threat to the future of the game than the fact that people who aren't going to watch in any case aren't currently interested.

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.

That would be true if they were smaller models of the exact same design; however, they aren't. Proportionally, female hockey players thighs are every bit as developed as those of male counterparts. I don't think the same is true of their necks. I realize that those necks are supporting heads that average out to a smaller size. You are correct that the impact from the collisions with other female hockey players would be less, but that isn't the case when colliding with objects that are stationary or nearly so such as the ice, the boards, and the post. The female player brings less energy into the collision with such objects, but if they weigh less, then they also have less mass over which to distribute that energy.

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 think current players would be largely in favor. I've heard female coaches say that they wanted checking when they played, but once they started coaching, their position evolved.

I guess I wouldn't be as opposed to it if the objective was to separate a player from the puck, and I think that was the idea when the game was first invented. In men's hockey, the goal of a check is more often to blow someone up. It's no longer a strategy for defending the net, but rather a means to intimidate and take a physical toll on the opponent. The talent level in the women's game resembles a steeper pyramid than in men's, so a dilution of that talent pool by an increase in injury would damage the level of play more quickly.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

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

Not so, if I correctly remember one or more articles referencing physiological studies/facts in the "Concussion" thread from a year or more ago.

He's basically just reiterating some of the conclusions expressed in those articles.

 

[ExHockeyguy]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It would improve the game tremendously if both sexes went to 3/4 face shields instead of the masks. I've never liked the facemasks.

 

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

It would improve the game tremendously if both sexes went to 3/4 face shields instead of the masks. I've never liked the facemasks.

But have you ever had a puck take out four of your upper front teeth?

 

[ARM]

It would improve the game tremendously if both sexes went to 3/4 face shields instead of the masks. I've never liked the facemasks.

Sticking to the women's game only, what problem would this change be solving? We already have rules forbidding contact to the head of an opponent with sticks, gloves, or elbows. It would be simpler and safer to just have the officials enforce those rules. As D2D says, pucks are going to hit players around the mouth and jaw from time to time, and so will sticks, even though it may be unintentional. In the NHL game I watched last night, a defenseman swiped at the puck but ramped up the puck carrier's stick and hit him in the mouth. Stick contact can happen on the follow through after a shot or pass. I'm unconvinced that making a rule change that would increase the risk of facial injuries would make the game any safer in other aspects.

 

[123kidd]

But have you ever had a puck take out four of your upper front teeth?

Have you? It's usually sticks that make players spit chiclets.
If the men get a choice to wear a visor, because I don't think it will be mandatory, give the women a choice to wear one as well.

 

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Have you? It's usually sticks that make players spit chiclets.

Can be either a puck or a stick. What difference does it make? If you lose them, you lose them. I sure wish they had facemasks when I played - I lost a front tooth in high school (stick) and suffered a broken cheekbone in college (elbow).

If the men get a choice to wear a visor, because I don't think it will be mandatory, give the women a choice to wear one as well.

It wasn't that long ago when players in the NHL - including goalies - didn't even wear helmets. It won't be long before you see all NHL players wearing visors, and in time facemasks too, I believe. As it stands now, both the men and the women are required to wear one, all the way from mini-mites through college.

 

[ExHockeyguy]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Can be either a puck or a stick. What difference does it make? If you lose them, you lose them. I sure wish they had facemasks when I played - I lost a front tooth in high school (stick) and suffered a broken cheekbone in college (elbow).



It wasn't that long ago when players in the NHL - including goalies - didn't even wear helmets. It won't be long before you see all NHL players wearing visors, and in time facemasks too, I believe. As it stands now, both the men and the women are required to wear one, all the way from mini-mites through college.

Disagree with you on that one. Juniors wear half-shields (as well as facemask option). So a kid goes from midgets to high school, and then at juniors he wears a half-shield. Then off to 2-3 years of college with the mask (and probably some of the worst high-sticking and cheap shots to the face you'll see at any level) and off to pros where the half-shield is worn. Facemasks are not allowed in pro because it is consider a potential "weapon" - i.e. striking force. You will never see them at the pro level. Kids who play college and then represent their countries in the IIHF Worlds love wearing the visors again, if only for a two week stretch.

If you try to eliminate every possible possibility of injury, you eliminate the nature of the game. What happened after face masks were introduced? The number and severity of other injuries - specifically shoulders and collarbones - rose significantly. Kids think they are bullet-proof and develop a total disregard for safety or the rules. I was a high school and college coach for 30 years. The lack of player-to-player respect is amazing today compared back to the 70s when I played or the 80's-00s when I coached. My belief is that a lot of this has happened because we tried to over-protect the player. Take the mask off, replace it with a half-shield (at the appropriate age, like juniors and college and international when they're supposed to be a little more mature) and after a season or two of adjustment you'll notice a decline in stick penalties and injuries; a cleaner game will reappear that emphasizes the skill over the brawn. Obviously it isn't easy; but as coaching education has become so structured and improved, it can be done properly.

You will always have injuries of some nature. Accept it. Risk is a part of life. People need to understand they accept certain potential liabilities in life; no way around it.

Lastly, nearly unanimous consensus by college coaches for the men to go to half-shields. I hope they do. I hope the women follow.

 

[brookyone]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

I'm unconvinced that making a rule change that would increase the risk of facial injuries would make the game any safer in other aspects.

Me too.

 

[D2D]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

You will always have injuries of some nature. Accept it. Risk is a part of life. People need to understand they accept certain potential liabilities in life; no way around it.

I certainly get the fact that risk is a part of life. What I can't accept is taking no action to minimize it. Certainly half-shields are better than no shields, but sticks can still come up underneath to the eye area. Whereas with a full mask, your eyes are totally protected, along with your teeth.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[UCONN FAN]

It would improve the game tremendously if both sexes went to 3/4 face shields instead of the masks. I've never liked the facemasks.

What stupid a stupid post.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

...So a kid goes from midgets to high school, and then at juniors he wears a half-shield. Then off to 2-3 years of college with the mask (and Kids who play college and then represent their countries in the IIHF Worlds love wearing the visors again, if only for a two week stretch.

Any form of face shield increases heat under the helmet, and therefore causes some discomfort. Any form of face shield compromises vision a bit. Reduce those factors and of course the players love it.

If you try to eliminate every possible possibility of injury, you eliminate the nature of the game. What happened after face masks were introduced? The number and severity of other injuries - specifically shoulders and collarbones - rose significantly. Kids think they are bullet-proof and develop a total disregard for safety or the rules. I was a high school and college coach for 30 years. The lack of player-to-player respect is amazing today compared back to the 70s when I played or the 80's-00s when I coached. My belief is that a lot of this has happened because we tried to over-protect the player. Take the mask off, replace it with a half-shield (at the appropriate age, like juniors and college and international when they're supposed to be a little more mature) and after a season or two of adjustment you'll notice a decline in stick penalties and injuries; a cleaner game will reappear that emphasizes the skill over the brawn. Obviously it isn't easy; but as coaching education has become so structured and improved, it can be done properly...

While there is merit to this position, I can't share your conclusion. For one thing, I'm not as confident that "a season or two of adjustment" would do the trick. On the respect issue, part me says that the genie is out of the bottle, and isn't going back in.

And even if stick fouls can be successfully reduced, are today's players suddenly going to stop blocking shots? Compared with the 70's and 80's, there's a totally different mindset today on shot blocking. If we take away the full shields, are we going to go back to telling players just get out of the way, don't screen your goalie? Of course not. Today's shot blocking is an effective tactic, and it will continue whether the face is protected or not.

At a more general level, I can't agree that at a player should be asked to put their vision and dental health on the line for a sport they're playing on an amateur basis. If a player is being paid to play professionally, it makes some sense to say that they're entitled to look for every last competitive edge. In other words, to assume the risk. But for those whose elite-level playing days are finished at age 18 or 22, I'd prefer to see them graduate with their vision and smiles intact.

...Lastly, nearly unanimous consensus by college coaches for the men to go to half-shields. I hope they do. I hope the women follow.

While I wish you continued success in your dental practice, my feeling is that you should find another way to increase revenue.

OK, jk on that. But I do believe that the proposed change would result in a significant uptick in injuries, and flunks the cost/benefit test for that reason.

 

[fantasticfrito]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

In regard to women going to a 3/4 shield: I can reply with full confidence that the women would not want to switch out of a full mask. They will not want to risk the loss of teeth or acquire facial scars.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Why would any player not want a full face shield? As a parent of kids who played hockey, there's no way they play hockey if they don't have full face shields. I just dropped $4,000 on getting my kids's teeth straight, then she's a Fr in college and gets them blown out by a stick. No way.

I don't see any benefit to the game if they don't wear the full face shields. For those of you who support dropping the full face shield, please give specific reasons for how the game would benefit.

 

[123kidd]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Even if there's enough coaches that vote in favor of this, it still needs to clear the NCAA safety committee and then get approval from university presidents. When brought up two years ago, it failed big time.

 

[ExHockeyguy]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

Even if there's enough coaches that vote in favor of this, it still needs to clear the NCAA safety committee and then get approval from university presidents. When brought up two years ago, it failed big time.

Just wait. It's coming. It was brought up two years ago to prepare for now. Most big rule changes happen that way. It takes time for data collection, research, committee work, etc.

In reply to the other posters, do some research. 1. Jrs. - who don't get paid (re: USHL, NAHL, etc). Those kids are 16-21 mostly; 2. Shot blocking has been an effective tactic - and just plain good defense - since the game began. There's a right way and wrong way to do it. Throwing yourself face first at anything is usually a bad idea; same with checking. Armor begets reckless play. "Back in the day" sticks were much lower. 3. You are all over exaggerating the incident of face injuries (loss of vision? Really? Studies have shown more loss of peripheral vision with facemasks - and thus more shoulder/upper body injuries. It's a statistical thing. But if you don't want to take the risk, I get it. Still, the women's game, perhaps maybe just at the "pro" level, won't advance in popularity until people can see the faces. You might not agree but it's true.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: NCAA ice hockey rule change prediction & discussion thread

In reply to the other posters, do some research. 1. Jrs. - who don't get paid (re: USHL, NAHL, etc). Those kids are 16-21 mostly; 2. Shot blocking has been an effective tactic - and just plain good defense - since the game began. There's a right way and wrong way to do it. Throwing yourself face first at anything is usually a bad idea; same with checking. Armor begets reckless play. "Back in the day" sticks were much lower. 3. You are all over exaggerating the incident of face injuries (loss of vision? Really? Studies have shown more loss of peripheral vision with facemasks - and thus more shoulder/upper body injuries. It's a statistical thing.

Yes, it is, and the data suggests very strongly that you are wrong. Studies consistently show that full face masks drastically reduce the incidence facial injuries, including those to the mouth and jaw, while having little or no effect on injuries to the other parts of the body.

http://bjsportmed.com/content/36/6/410.full#sec-13
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/104575/hockey1.pdf

There are plenty of others.