Rule change speculation thread

[Hux]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I will agree with you that a D player would want to check but I strongly feel the forwards wouldn't want it. The women's game has gotten so fast without it and hitting would for sure slow the game down a ton. Girls/women didn't grow up with this and I think there would be many injuries including concussions. 3/4 shields would have to be a players decision as I assure you after one accidental stick to the face that caused a scar to a female player would be the end of it and expensive.

Allow the D to stand a player up and bumping and grinding in the corners, and in front of the net and take away the mysterious interference calls and weak 1 second hooking calla. Of course always call the checking, tripping, slashing obvious penalties. Let the women play and don't feel the need to call 3-4 penalties every period.

By far the best games I saw this year were the 4 or less penalties called for a whole game.

I think this is what a lot of players would like to see, as they seem to think it would result in a more consistently called game. Right now you can bump someone pretty good one period/game and the next you can't. At Worlds I noticed there was a lot of bumping and banging and glass rattling going on along the boards and the officials let the girls play, usually calling only the most egregious contact (usually from behind). There was even a real sweet old school hip check thrown that slowed up a forward entering the offensive zone that was allowed. IF it were kept to this type of contact it would not be detrimental to the game. (and eliminating open ice hits from the men's game wouldn't be a bad thing either)

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I think this is what a lot of players would like to see, as they seem to think it would result in a more consistently called game. Right now you can bump someone pretty good one period/game and the next you can't. At Worlds I noticed there was a lot of bumping and banging and glass rattling going on along the boards and the officials let the girls play, usually calling only the most egregious contact (usually from behind). There was even a real sweet old school hip check thrown that slowed up a forward entering the offensive zone that was allowed. IF it were kept to this type of contact it would not be detrimental to the game. (and eliminating open ice hits from the men's game wouldn't be a bad thing either)

Agree 100% with this. Standing a girl up for a second and being able to defend in front of the net. YES

Just don't want to see the blind, leave your feet, into the boards crap. Which would happen if checking were allowed. NO

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

No checking. I have a number of reasons, but first and foremost, there are already too many careers ended by concussions. It is logical that more contact will result in more concussions and other injuries, not less.

I'm not advocating for hitting by any means but if it were allowed I don't necessarily know for sure that the above would hold true. I think part of the reason for the concussions in women's hockey is that the girls are never really taught to expect much contact and brace or protect themselves from it because the expectation is that for the most part it's not going to happen.

If hitting were to become a legal part of the game I think players would have to start learning to expect contact and learn how to brace/protect themselves when they are in a vulnerable position because the mindset would have to switch from "I can go into the corner and reach for a puck and put myself in a vulnerable situation along the wall" to "I can go into the corner and try to win a battle but I better be in a strong athletic stance and ready to take some contact"

 

[ARM]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I'm not advocating for hitting by any means but if it were allowed I don't necessarily know for sure that the above would hold true. I think part of the reason for the concussions in women's hockey is that the girls are never really taught to expect much contact and brace or protect themselves from it because the expectation is that for the most part it's not going to happen.

That is a commonly held opinion, but I don't agree with it. By the time the players get to college, they've definitely experienced plenty of contact. Most have been one of the better players on one or more teams prior to college, and as such, usually get more physical play from opponents. I've seen collisions involving teammates that announce rather emphatically that contact could occur at any moment.

As for the battles along the boards, I think the kids already do a good job of getting in an athletic stance, because if they don't, they lose most of the battles.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Of course Arm, nobody would argue that, but kids also don't get injuries or concussions on every play. The reality though is that there are a lot of high risk plays that kids try to make that result in them being in a vulnerable position if and when contact occurs. Many of the plays where those injuries do happen, happen because one player puts themselves in a vulnerable situation because they are trying to dangle in traffic or reach for a loose puck or standing next to a scrum not expecting to have a body laid on them when the puck pops out.

If the expectation is that heavy contact will happen when you try to do those things then the kids will adapt and not put themselves in as many vulnerable situations and/or will be more prepared for the contact if they do. Injuries and concussions will still happen, just as they do now but I seriously doubt it would be at a significantly different rate than currently.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I'm not advocating for hitting by any means but if it were allowed I don't necessarily know for sure that the above would hold true. I think part of the reason for the concussions in women's hockey is that the girls are never really taught to expect much contact and brace or protect themselves from it because the expectation is that for the most part it's not going to happen.

If hitting were to become a legal part of the game I think players would have to start learning to expect contact and learn how to brace/protect themselves when they are in a vulnerable position because the mindset would have to switch from "I can go into the corner and reach for a puck and put myself in a vulnerable situation along the wall" to "I can go into the corner and try to win a battle but I better be in a strong athletic stance and ready to take some contact"

I'm going to speculate that with proper adjustment for numbers of participants, or even on a team by team basis, there's still a higher incidence of injuries causing lost games for the men than the women. Even with the men completely accustomed to the more prevalent physical contact in their game. It is speculation, or merely theory but I'm with ARM per belief that checking if allowed, results in an increase in injuries and also likely the seriousness of many injuries. I'll qualify that a little...I'm not implying ARM thinks there would be an uptick in the seriousness of some injuries vs. what is typical in the game as presently played. That's my theory. Truthfully, I don't have any doubt...regardless of the players preparedness.

This checking / no checking debate's been around the horn a few times.

 

[Hockeydad4two]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I have to agree with Brookyone. At least for the short term. I'm not so concerned with the play along the boards, but for the neutral ice area. I've seen too many girls carrying the puck through the neutral zone with their heads down. I suspect that these are the girls that haven't played with the boys during the checking ages.

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I'm going to speculate that with proper adjustment for numbers of participants, or even on a team by team basis, there's still a higher incidence of injuries causing lost games for the men than the women. Even with the men completely accustomed to the more prevalent physical contact in their game. It is speculation, or merely theory but I'm with ARM per belief that checking if allowed, results in an increase in injuries and also likely the seriousness of many injuries. I'll qualify that a little...I'm not implying ARM thinks there would be an uptick in the seriousness of some injuries vs. what is typical in the game as presently played. That's my theory. Truthfully, I don't have any doubt...regardless of the players preparedness.

This checking / no checking debate's been around the horn a few times.

I'm a little late to the dance but as reported by the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/ourgame/story/2008/11/26/hockey-concussionspart3.html:

According to recent findings, Botterill is far from alone. A study of NCAA sports found women playing hockey were more than twice as likely as their male counterparts to suffer concussions. The female game even topped football in concussion numbers, according to the study.

The report goes on to speculate that it is because of the anatomy of women and weaker neck muscles that there are higher incidents of concussions. Based on the incidents of concussions in the women's game already I think allowing checking in women's hockey would not only be foolish, it would be dangerous. I agree with most of the posters like Hux that what the women's game needs is more consistency in how checking is called. As far as I know, contact is legal but checking is a penalty. Checking is more about intent. If I understand the rule checking is the intent to knock a skater off the puck. Incidental contact is not checking. I think the game is good the way it is today but I agree that officials have to be more consistent.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I'm a little late to the dance but as reported by the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/ourgame/story/2008/11/26/hockey-concussionspart3.html:

According to recent findings, Botterill is far from alone. A study of NCAA sports found women playing hockey were more than twice as likely as their male counterparts to suffer concussions. The female game even topped football in concussion numbers, according to the study.

The report goes on to speculate that it is because of the anatomy of women and weaker neck muscles that there are higher incidents of concussions. Based on the incidents of concussions in the women's game already I think allowing checking in women's hockey would not only be foolish, it would be dangerous. I agree with most of the posters like Hux that what the women's game needs is more consistency in how checking is called. As far as I know, contact is legal but checking is a penalty. Checking is more about intent. If I understand the rule checking is the intent to knock a skater off the puck. Incidental contact is not checking. I think the game is good the way it is today but I agree that officials have to be more consistent.

Not to perpetuate this further, but I'd also argue that female athletes are about 10x more likely than males to admit to having the symptoms and actively seeking out treatment in all but the most serious cases (not that this is a bad thing...obviously everyone needs to take this issue very seriously)

 

[Hockeydad4two]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Not to perpetuate this further, but I'd also argue that female athletes are about 10x more likely than males to admit to having the symptoms and actively seeking out treatment in all but the most serious cases (not that this is a bad thing...obviously everyone needs to take this issue very seriously)

I wonder how consistent the diagnosis is between sports/schools. At my D's school, you take a baseline "concussion" (don't know name!) test before the season starts. After a potential hit and symptoms, you have to take the test again and at least score the baseline to get back into practice.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I wonder how consistent the diagnosis is between sports/schools. At my D's school, you take a baseline "concussion" (don't know name!) test before the season starts. After a potential hit and symptoms, you have to take the test again and at least score the baseline to get back into practice.

And how many athletes (particularly males who feel they have to uphold their macho image) sandbag the baseline test to give themselves some wiggle room in the case that they have to be tested later on?

 

[DC78-82]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

I wonder how consistent the diagnosis is between sports/schools. At my D's school, you take a baseline "concussion" (don't know name!) test before the season starts. After a potential hit and symptoms, you have to take the test again and at least score the baseline to get back into practice.

Speaking of practice, a fair number of the concussions I've heard about at the Women's College level were sustained in practice. That throws a bit of a wrench into the conversation.

 

[Hockeydad4two]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

And how many athletes (particularly males who feel they have to uphold their macho image) sandbag the baseline test to give themselves some wiggle room in the case that they have to be tested later on?

I've been told that it's not just the men sandbagging!

 

[puckskillz]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Had this discussion with a physiologist/physician a while back. His two cents in researching this debate was to NOT allow checking. His belief would be that the incidence of injuries would go up significantly due to the following. With speed now of 22-24 mph and athletes adding mass through advanced training, the impact energies are getting to be significant. It's well documented that female athletes have a higher incidence of knee/hip injuries due to anatomy differences and contact would exacerbate this. The bigger/faster players would also see a higher incidence of upper body injuries as the same anatomical differences occur around the neck/shoulder area. We all know how tough these ladies are but the female anatomy cannot absorb the same impact energies as a male body. (bone size, tendons, other) The fear would be with high speed contact in the neutral zone or more high speed contact with the boards after initial body contact. If adopted, players would over time learn the proper way to absorb these energies and keep their head up appropriately but you would likely see a higher injury rate. It would need to be phased-in at lower levels as a wholesale change at the adult college level could be very dangerous.

I don't know enough to argue but it makes sense. There is no reason to put these ladies in a career ending situation. The beauty of the game vs the mens' is the skill and puck movement. Checking would take away the flow and slow the game down.

 

[Call It]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Had this discussion with a physiologist/physician a while back. His two cents in researching this debate was to NOT allow checking. His belief would be that the incidence of injuries would go up significantly due to the following. With speed now of 22-24 mph and athletes adding mass through advanced training, the impact energies are getting to be significant. It's well documented that female athletes have a higher incidence of knee/hip injuries due to anatomy differences and contact would exacerbate this. The bigger/faster players would also see a higher incidence of upper body injuries as the same anatomical differences occur around the neck/shoulder area. We all know how tough these ladies are but the female anatomy cannot absorb the same impact energies as a male body. (bone size, tendons, other) The fear would be with high speed contact in the neutral zone or more high speed contact with the boards after initial body contact. If adopted, players would over time learn the proper way to absorb these energies and keep their head up appropriately but you would likely see a higher injury rate. It would need to be phased-in at lower levels as a wholesale change at the adult college level could be very dangerous.

I don't know enough to argue but it makes sense. There is no reason to put these ladies in a career ending situation. The beauty of the game vs the mens' is the skill and puck movement. Checking would take away the flow and slow the game down.

This makes absolute sense. Thanks for the post.

You said "The beauty of the game vs the mens' is the skill and puck movement." I agree, notice you didn't say toe drags. What I don't like is to see is this bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend it, despite being in perfect position. When a player pulls off a move in the men's game, they did it knowing the risk of getting checked. Only risk in the women's game is a turnover. I have seen USA Hockey select female players that all they could do is dangle, well 1 succesfull dangle and 25 turnovers. Perhaps this is just the way it is.

 

[Hux]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

This makes absolute sense. Thanks for the post.

You said "The beauty of the game vs the mens' is the skill and puck movement." I agree, notice you didn't say toe drags. What I don't like is to see is this bad hockey called dangles where you turn your back to the goal and the D man has no way to defend it, despite being in perfect position. When a player pulls off a move in the men's game, they did it knowing the risk of getting checked. Only risk in the women's game is a turnover. I have seen USA Hockey select female players that all they could do is dangle, well 1 succesfull dangle and 25 turnovers. Perhaps this is just the way it is.

This is funny....and true, to an extent. Worry not though, the toe draggers and danglers learn by the end of their first semester playing D1 that they are rarely going to get away with that stuff. While the D are usually pretty good at stopping it, the coach's wrath tends to be the force that overcomes it soonest.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vB_LC10N3xU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To this day I'm still haunted by Denis Savard and his patented 360 degree pivots with back side to the net (briefly) then going in alone...as a former North Star fan that is. I assume many a D suffered associated anxiety.

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Here's an article on the main USCHO page...

Visors, overtime go under microscope in rules committee meetings

 

[canadahockey26]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Why would the men's side adopt visors and not the women's?

I don't want to see visors on either side of the game tbh, neither men's college players or women's college players are professionals. However I never understood why women aren't allowed to wear the visor, and men are forced to. Seems a bit sexist.

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: Rule change speculation thread

Do women's players wear visors at any level of hockey?