The article below talks about the NHL. Yes they are cracking down on head hits but no they don't have a way to figure out the fine line between dirty and dangerous. And you know what? That is an NHL issue and it should not be a youth ice hockey issue. Youth ice hockey rules need to be clarified and redefined.
Not only can youth ice hockey take out head contact by strictly enforcing current rules and adding immediate rule changes such as game ejections for head contact... they can also address dangerous hits or excessive force hits.
Most of our kids aren't going to the NHL - some may play college hockey. While they are in youth ice hockey they need to be protected from dangerous hits. Why? Well, a lot of reason but for this blog let say size difference.
Until growing is done a large child has an advantage, a smaller child doesn't have. The smaller child also has little defense against brutal dangerous hits that use excessive force. They don't have the body mass. Youth ice hockey must take control of excessive force hits and even the playing field. Refs need to be able to call excessive force penalties. Checking is a skill that needs x amount of force to move a player off the puck or break up a play. Excessive force only harms a child beyond what checking is intended for. When it happens it is clear. It has not place in youth ice hockey. It's not the NHL, why do we allow it to exist?
By Nicholas J. Cotsonika,
Fine Line Between Dirty and Dangerous
DETROIT – Dangerous. That’s the word Teemu Selanne(notes) used to describe Niklas Kronwall(notes) after taking a big hit from him Saturday night in the Anaheim Ducks’ 5-4 loss to the Detroit Red Wings.
Wings coach Mike Babcock is fine with that.
“He is,” said Babcock of Kronwall. “That’s why we like him.”
But dirty? That’s different.
More From Nicholas J. CotsonikaDevils' deal with Kovy looking worse by the day Oct 24, 2010 Struggling Iginla doesn't make excuses Oct 22, 2010 AdChoices
Niklas Kronwall steamrolled Chicago's Martin Havlat in the 2009 playoffs with this hit that was ruled to be clean. (Photo by Jim Prisching/Getty Images) “To say he’s a dirty player is wrong,” Babcock said. “To say he’s dangerous to the opposition at times when he steps up, there’s no question. That’s a fair statement.”
And to Babcock, that’s fair play.
Head shots and concussions are major issues in the NHL. But all the talk of gray matter runs into gray areas. When does dangerous become dirty? Where is the line between legal and illegal, and is that the same line between ethical and unethical? Have rule changes gone far enough, and if not, how do we make the sport safer but not too soft?
There are myriad opinions on each specific incident and the issues as a whole, and they can be shaded by team allegiance, world view or the details of any given play, like the hit Selanne took from Kronwall on Saturday night.
You could argue that Kronwall has found the very edge. Although he has delivered enough devastating shots to earn a reputation as a vicious hitter, he has never been fined or suspended.
“Hitting is part of the game, and I like that part of the game,” said Kronwall, who admits he feels a rush after a clean hit, but no satisfaction in laying out an opponent. “Sometimes you hit, and sometimes you get hit.”
But Babcock said Kronwall isn’t “on the edge at all” because “he’s a clean player,” while Selanne said Saturday night: “That guy is dangerous out there. One of these days, somebody’s going to get him. I know that. It’s just a matter of time when.”
Kronwall isn’t a big hitter because he’s big. As a 6-foot, 192-pound defenseman, he’s a big hitter because he’s a master of timing. He often uses his opponents’ mass and acceleration against them. He smoked Martin Havlat(notes), then of the Chicago Blackhawks, when he caught Havlat with his head down along the boards during the 2009 playoffs.
The Selanne hit was similar, though not as violent. The puck was coming up the right-wing boards in Anaheim’s defensive zone. Selanne was charging after it. Kronwall was playing it.
“I thought he was going to follow through his check,” Kronwall said. “I was just going to take a step and meet the check. Now, he didn’t check me at all, obviously, and that’s what caught him off-guard.”
Kronwall laid his right shoulder into Selanne’s jaw. Unlike Havlat, who collapsed in a heap with a concussion, Selanne staggered for a moment but continued to play. On that everyone agrees.
From there, though, people see the play differently. Kronwall said he used only his shoulder; Selanne said the hit included an elbow. Babcock called it “a hockey play”; Ducks coach Randy Carlyle told reporters that Kronwall “clearly jumped” and “went for his head.”
Carlyle also told reporters that a referee told him he didn’t see an illegal act. No penalty was called, and the league has not disciplined Kronwall. Rule 48, introduced last March, defines an illegal check to the head as “a lateral or blind-side hit.” This hit was from the front. That’s the key distinction, at least to the Wings.
Wings forward Johan Franzen(notes), who suffered a mild concussion when he took an elbow to the jaw Oct. 14 against the Dallas Stars, railed against the recent uptick in head shots around the NHL.
“They’ve got to suspend more guys. If it’s an illegal hit to the head, it should be a suspension,” Franzen said. “There are some guys out there that don’t think twice about hurting someone. It’s those guys who you’ve got to suspend. Otherwise they’re going to keep doing it.”
Asked to define a legal hit to the head, Franzen said: “A shoulder facing a guy. That’s a legal hit.”
Kronwall said he hasn’t had to change his game because of the NHL’s new head-shot rule because he always has tried to hit from the front.
“There’s a lot of different aspects of the hit,” Kronwall said. “Obviously you want to keep your arms down, elbows tucked into your body. I’ve had some problems in the past with leaving my feet. That’s something I’m trying to work on, because obviously that’s something you don’t want to see in the game.”
Even if his hit on Selanne were legal, should Kronwall have passed it up? Selanne’s head was down. Some say players need to show more respect for each other, but others say players have a responsibility to protect themselves. And how is Kronwall supposed to process that moral dilemma in a split-second? If he hits Selanne, he could hurt him. If he doesn’t, he could hurt his team.
The immediate, physical reason for delivering a hit is to separate your opponent from the puck. The subtler, psychological reason is to intimidate your opponents.
“I think Kronwall plays the game well within the rules,” Babcock said. “It’s well-documented. He steps up and he gets on the hunt for people. He does it way more at playoff time. … It makes you aware. Then later in the neutral zone when you should get a pass, you miss it. That’s just hockey.”
Even if Kronwall’s hit on Selanne were legal, should it be in the future? Former NHL referee Kerry Fraser and some leading concussion experts have called for a complete ban on hits to the head. Babcock and Kronwall supported that.
“I don’t think that anyone’s going out there to try to hit someone in the head,” said Kronwall, who has had concussions himself and is as well-spoken off the ice as he is hard-hitting on it. “When you go out there, you just go in and you lead with your shoulder. Obviously we want to get away from all the hits to the head if we can.”
Said Babcock: “If they’re going to make a rule – like in Europe, every time you hit someone in the head, it’s two minutes – I’ve got no problem with that. But I think the game’s physical. I think we could totally out-rule the hits in the head and still have a physical game. What no one wants to lose is the physicality in the game.”
For now, all we have are the rules as they are written and our own opinions. Kronwall will keep stepping up and keep hitting, until someone tells him to stop. He will keep being dangerous.
“As far as my game, I’m going to try to stay the same as much as possible,” Kronwall said. “If I get a suspension, then we’ll look at it from there. If there’s a bad hit, obviously you have to look at it and see what you can do differently. … I don’t think I’m the same kind of player anymore if I’m going out there and being hesitant.”
Nicholas J. Cotsonika is a hockey writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Nicholas a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
NFL Crack Down on Hits Works: Enforce and Stiffen' Youth Hockey Penalties
Below is a bit from NFL Players React To Crackdown on Illegal Hits
It seems they got it. Changing the rules and creating real penalties, in this case fines and suspensions, seems to have gotten the message to players. Make a note that not only did the players not get called for illegal hits, no player seemed to score a touchdown because they couldn't be tackled in a legal way.
In the case of youth ice hockey. Immediate game suspensions have to take place when head contact occurs. Significant consequences are needed to help teach the proper way to check and manage hits. It is within USA Hockey to in force the current rules and expand the punishment. Our kids safety is at risk. There is no need to wait. Look at how the NFL changed its culture.
HERE is a bit of the article:
With all of the day's 13 games complete, there were no cringe-inducing hits to replay on the highlight shows - nothing the likes of what James Harrison, Brandon Meriweather and Dunta Robinson delivered last weekend in a spate of vicious plays that brought about hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, along with repeated reminders that the league would be watching more closely from now on.
By sending out its various warnings - a memo from Commissioner Roger Goodell, a video showing can- and can't-dos, lists sent to coaches letting them know which players have multiple unnecessary roughness penalties - the NFL is looking for more certainty in a sport that has many shades of gray.
One bit of black and white: No players were penalized for illegal hits to the head in any of the 13 games, giving the league every reason to believe its message got through.
"I've seen a change in players' behavior in one week," NFL officiating chief Carl Johnson was quoted as telling Peter King on NBC's "Football Night in America."
It seems they got it. Changing the rules and creating real penalties, in this case fines and suspensions, seems to have gotten the message to players. Make a note that not only did the players not get called for illegal hits, no player seemed to score a touchdown because they couldn't be tackled in a legal way.
In the case of youth ice hockey. Immediate game suspensions have to take place when head contact occurs. Significant consequences are needed to help teach the proper way to check and manage hits. It is within USA Hockey to in force the current rules and expand the punishment. Our kids safety is at risk. There is no need to wait. Look at how the NFL changed its culture.
HERE is a bit of the article:
With all of the day's 13 games complete, there were no cringe-inducing hits to replay on the highlight shows - nothing the likes of what James Harrison, Brandon Meriweather and Dunta Robinson delivered last weekend in a spate of vicious plays that brought about hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, along with repeated reminders that the league would be watching more closely from now on.
By sending out its various warnings - a memo from Commissioner Roger Goodell, a video showing can- and can't-dos, lists sent to coaches letting them know which players have multiple unnecessary roughness penalties - the NFL is looking for more certainty in a sport that has many shades of gray.
One bit of black and white: No players were penalized for illegal hits to the head in any of the 13 games, giving the league every reason to believe its message got through.
"I've seen a change in players' behavior in one week," NFL officiating chief Carl Johnson was quoted as telling Peter King on NBC's "Football Night in America."
What Are The USA Hockey Rules On Head Contact?
Like I said... The best place to start with understanding head contact is with the rules. There is Rule 616 of USA Hockey. It appears the rules are there. I still feel rules need to be added but RECKLESSLY can be interpreted in many ways. The problem with contact sports and hockey in this case is that culturally we accept excessive hits. We may even accept head hits if "clean". Which is hard to believe.
The current rules could be used to shut down head contact and excessive force. New rules are needed.
Attempt to injury (last line) in my opinion is excessive force beyond what is needed to move a player off the puck. If we don't get involved as parents. These rules will continue to be interpreted lightly.
Rule 616 of USA Hockey:
Head Contact/Head-Butting
(a) A minor penalty, major penalty or a major plus game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be assessed to any player who intentionally or recklessly contacts a player in the head, including with the stick or by an illegal body check.
(b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by head contact (see Glossary).
(c) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who “head-butts” in such a manner as to in any way foul an opponent.
(Note) “Head Contact/Head-Butting” may also be treated as an Attempt to Injure or Deliberate Injury of an Opponent under Rule 603.
The current rules could be used to shut down head contact and excessive force. New rules are needed.
Attempt to injury (last line) in my opinion is excessive force beyond what is needed to move a player off the puck. If we don't get involved as parents. These rules will continue to be interpreted lightly.
Rule 616 of USA Hockey:
Head Contact/Head-Butting
(a) A minor penalty, major penalty or a major plus game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be assessed to any player who intentionally or recklessly contacts a player in the head, including with the stick or by an illegal body check.
(b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by head contact (see Glossary).
(c) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on any player who “head-butts” in such a manner as to in any way foul an opponent.
(Note) “Head Contact/Head-Butting” may also be treated as an Attempt to Injure or Deliberate Injury of an Opponent under Rule 603.
Huskies Win Their 2nd CBHL Game
The Huskies beat Tri-City Saturday. It took the Huskies a bit of time to score but once they realized passing made a difference they were able to seal a victory. Here are some highlights that show passing from the blue-line and players that move into position. The shooter had an option for a third pass to 2 open players. They were able to create options by spreading out.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The NHL Has a Unique Dilemma: What Dilemma? Penalize Them!
The piece of the article below came from: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AqS3neBDByoJndytgT5YLgR7vLYF?slug=nc-threeperiods102110 by Nicholas J. Cotsonika
The NHL has a unique dilemma because the game has gotten faster beyond the growth of the players. Rule changes instituted after the 2004-05 lockout have eliminated the clutching, grabbing and overall interference that used to slow down the pace. The product has never been better, but one byproduct is getting worse.
Im not with you here Nick, I've seen brutal hits through the 90's. I don't think you are doing this but I hope you aren't justifying the harm caused by players as... because they are too fast? Silly. These are NHL players that can stop, start and turn on a dime. Sure an occassionally collision might be out of the ordinary. But the hits are not byproducts. Players are responsible for the their actions. And when they can't be responsible the rules will hold them accountable. Change the rules.
“The speed of the game is the reason why we’re seeing injuries,” said Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville. “But I think we like the speed of the game, because it creates so much excitement and unpredictability. I think hits, you don’t see as much hitting, but the ones you do see sometimes can be a little more excessive than they used to be.”
Gosh Joel, what were the injuries from the 90's from... excessive weight from clutching and grabbing?
Concussions always will be an occupational hazard in hockey as in football. You can’t strap on metal blades and fly down a hard sheet of ice, surrounded by boards and glass and opponents, and not understand the risk.
I might die driving my car or flying in a plane. I can even choke to death on water. Death is an occupational hazard of life. Risk can be reduced by rules and respect. Think about it.
“I think it’s always going to be unlucky hits out there,” Hjalmarsson said. “It’s going to be tough to change. It’s such a fast sport, so it’s tough to make those decisions in a split-second. And sometimes it may look bad out there even though the intention is not bad at all.”
It will be tough change but change is alwasy accepted. Look at the griping about the change around clutching and grabbing. It is gone and the changes have been accepted.
Hjalmarsson considered his hit on Pominville among the unlucky variety, and Quenneville supported him, pointing out players have some responsibility to put themselves in position to protect themselves – and that Hjalmarsson was doing what he was supposed to do. “If you coach that situation, (Hjalmarsson) going into the puck carrier like that, that’s probably how you want him to do it,” Quenneville said.
There is truth to that. Just as there was truth to what Phoenix Coyotes captain Shane Doan(notes) said after he was suspended for three games, saying he hit Anaheim Ducks winger Dan Sexton’s(notes) hands, not his head. (Sexton’s stick is what hit his head, and he was not injured.) But there is a reason the NHL saw both incidents differently, and there is a reason why the players were suspended. There are the specifics of each incident. Then there is the big picture, the culture.
The issue was debated at the World Hockey Summit in August in Toronto. It was debated again at a hockey concussion summit this week at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. At both events, there were good data, good debates and good intentions. But on the ice, the solution needs to be practical and realistic.
Equipment is a catch-22. The more it protects, the more it makes players feel invincible. Fines take money out of a player’s pocket. But suspensions take money out of a player’s pocket and the player out of the lineup, affecting the player plus his teammates, his coach and everyone else connected to the organization.
This is the conflict at the professional level. If you institute a rule that you know will work, you will also hurt the franchise. We aren't idiots. Suspensions of a significant length is the answer. Ouch but not during the play-offs. See the problem?
Suspensions aren’t perfect, but they’re the most effective tool. It has to get to the point where it is clearly in everyone’s interest to do everything possible to avoid even the unlucky hits.
I agree on suspensions but disagree on imperfect. They are perfect because they are effective.
When the NHL instituted its post-lockout rules in 2005-06, there was a long line to the penalty box and a lot of grumbling. But eventually, everyone accepted the new reality and adjusted. Now that the NHL has instituted its new head-shot rule this season, there already have been fines and suspensions and grumbling. But if the league stays with it, eventually everyone should accept this new reality and adjust.
They grumbled and adjusted.
My interest in the NHL is because it influences youth ice hockey. Brutal hitting is not hockey. The NHL players not only have a responsibility to their league but to the youth ice hockey players.
The NHL has a unique dilemma because the game has gotten faster beyond the growth of the players. Rule changes instituted after the 2004-05 lockout have eliminated the clutching, grabbing and overall interference that used to slow down the pace. The product has never been better, but one byproduct is getting worse.
Im not with you here Nick, I've seen brutal hits through the 90's. I don't think you are doing this but I hope you aren't justifying the harm caused by players as... because they are too fast? Silly. These are NHL players that can stop, start and turn on a dime. Sure an occassionally collision might be out of the ordinary. But the hits are not byproducts. Players are responsible for the their actions. And when they can't be responsible the rules will hold them accountable. Change the rules.
“The speed of the game is the reason why we’re seeing injuries,” said Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville. “But I think we like the speed of the game, because it creates so much excitement and unpredictability. I think hits, you don’t see as much hitting, but the ones you do see sometimes can be a little more excessive than they used to be.”
Gosh Joel, what were the injuries from the 90's from... excessive weight from clutching and grabbing?
Concussions always will be an occupational hazard in hockey as in football. You can’t strap on metal blades and fly down a hard sheet of ice, surrounded by boards and glass and opponents, and not understand the risk.
I might die driving my car or flying in a plane. I can even choke to death on water. Death is an occupational hazard of life. Risk can be reduced by rules and respect. Think about it.
“I think it’s always going to be unlucky hits out there,” Hjalmarsson said. “It’s going to be tough to change. It’s such a fast sport, so it’s tough to make those decisions in a split-second. And sometimes it may look bad out there even though the intention is not bad at all.”
It will be tough change but change is alwasy accepted. Look at the griping about the change around clutching and grabbing. It is gone and the changes have been accepted.
Hjalmarsson considered his hit on Pominville among the unlucky variety, and Quenneville supported him, pointing out players have some responsibility to put themselves in position to protect themselves – and that Hjalmarsson was doing what he was supposed to do. “If you coach that situation, (Hjalmarsson) going into the puck carrier like that, that’s probably how you want him to do it,” Quenneville said.
There is truth to that. Just as there was truth to what Phoenix Coyotes captain Shane Doan(notes) said after he was suspended for three games, saying he hit Anaheim Ducks winger Dan Sexton’s(notes) hands, not his head. (Sexton’s stick is what hit his head, and he was not injured.) But there is a reason the NHL saw both incidents differently, and there is a reason why the players were suspended. There are the specifics of each incident. Then there is the big picture, the culture.
The issue was debated at the World Hockey Summit in August in Toronto. It was debated again at a hockey concussion summit this week at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. At both events, there were good data, good debates and good intentions. But on the ice, the solution needs to be practical and realistic.
Equipment is a catch-22. The more it protects, the more it makes players feel invincible. Fines take money out of a player’s pocket. But suspensions take money out of a player’s pocket and the player out of the lineup, affecting the player plus his teammates, his coach and everyone else connected to the organization.
This is the conflict at the professional level. If you institute a rule that you know will work, you will also hurt the franchise. We aren't idiots. Suspensions of a significant length is the answer. Ouch but not during the play-offs. See the problem?
Suspensions aren’t perfect, but they’re the most effective tool. It has to get to the point where it is clearly in everyone’s interest to do everything possible to avoid even the unlucky hits.
I agree on suspensions but disagree on imperfect. They are perfect because they are effective.
When the NHL instituted its post-lockout rules in 2005-06, there was a long line to the penalty box and a lot of grumbling. But eventually, everyone accepted the new reality and adjusted. Now that the NHL has instituted its new head-shot rule this season, there already have been fines and suspensions and grumbling. But if the league stays with it, eventually everyone should accept this new reality and adjust.
They grumbled and adjusted.
My interest in the NHL is because it influences youth ice hockey. Brutal hitting is not hockey. The NHL players not only have a responsibility to their league but to the youth ice hockey players.
Stop the Brutal Hits: What is the Definition of Checking?
With anything, understanding the rules as they are written is often a good starting point in making changes. One question I am asking is what is checking. Another question I am asking is how is the spirit or intent of checking written into the rules. I have done a web-search on checking and provided the links to the sources. (my responses are in bold)
The boards surrounding the ice help keep the puck in play and they can also be used as tools to play the puck. Players are permitted to "bodycheck" opponents into the boards as a means of stopping progress. The referees, linesmen and the outsides of the goal are "in play" and do not cause a stoppage of the game when the puck or players are influenced (by either bouncing or colliding) into them. Play can be stopped if the goal is knocked out of position. Play often proceeds for minutes without interruption. When play is stopped, it is restarted with a faceoff. Two players "face" each other and an official drops the puck to the ice, where the two players attempt to gain control of the puck. Markings on the ice indicate the locations for the "faceoff" and guide the positioning of players.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey
I see this definition states players are permitted to "bodycheck" the players into the boards as a means of stopping progress. I am assuming it means progress of the play and not the future development of the player. It doesn't mention anything about the intensity of the hit. How hard of a check is needed to stop the progress of the play? Very little. So why do we allow for excessive force in the bodychecks? Force that goes above and beyond stopping the progress of play is not acceptable in youth ice hockey.
Body checking
Using the body to knock an opponent against the boards or to the ice. This is often referred to as simply checking or hitting and is only permitted on an opponent with possession of the puck. Body checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Charging, hitting from behind and boarding are examples of illegal hits, due to their dangerous nature and increased likelihood of causing serious injury. In women's ice hockey, any body checking is a penalty and is also usually not allowed in amateur leagues and leagues with young children. Some intramural university leagues do not permit bodychecking, in order to avoid injury and incidents of fighting. "Leaning" against opponents is an alternative to body checking but, if abused, may be penalized for holding.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_(ice_hockey)
I see this definition states using the body to knock the player against the boards or to the ice. And And it is only permitted on an opponent with the possession of the puck. HOW many times have you seen a child checked without possession? It does state checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Maybe recklessly needs to defined better in youth ice hockey. I would include reckless be defined in part as excessive force.
Hip-checking
When a player drops to a near-crouching stance and swings his hips toward an opposing player, sending the opponent off balance, often falling to the ice. Mostly done up against the boards. A hit below the knees is considered an infraction in the National Hockey League, and called "clipping".
Shoulder-checking
The most common type of body-check, in which a player puts his shoulder into his opponent to muscle the opponent out of position. The elbow must be tucked in, or the player risks taking a penalty for elbowing.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_(ice_hockey)
Here are two types of checks. Hip and Shoulder. Why not only allow strict interpretation of this in youth ice hockey. Hip contact or shoulder contact. Remove full force hits into the chest of a player. There is no such thing as a Chest Checking in hockey. Hip or Shoulder! Let the kids learn this first.
Checking in ice hockey is the act of physically keeping an opposing player in check. It is not a penalty.
There are multiple types of checking:
Body checking
Using the hip or body to contact an opponent in possession of the puck from the side or front. This is often referred to as simply checking.
From: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Checking_%28hockey%29
This definition states the act of physically keeping an opposing player in check. How about keeping the checker in check. It states using hip or body contact on a player in possession with the puck. I can see one rule change that could occur is that you can't hit a player that does not have the puck. That means you can't hit them while going to the puck. You can't hit them if they are standing next to the puck. You can't hit them if they released the puck. I am talking about checking. Physical play and body pushing is not the issue. Brutal force and excessive force is the issue.
check or checking:
any contact initiated by a defending player against an opponent to get the puck away from him or slow him down; there are two main types of checks: stick check and body check; these are only allowed against a player in control of the puck or against the last player to control it immediately after he gives it up; checking after too many steps or strides becomes charging.
From: http://www.firstbasesports.com/hockey_glossary.html
This definition says any contact but goes on to say there are two main checks which are stick checks and body checks. Stick checks are great. It does say a check can go to the player that is in control of the puck or against the last player to control it immediately after he gives it up. Hmm the later is fairly vague especially to kids but understood at the pro-levels. It is not understood by children and teens. Simply change the rules of body checking to the player who has control of the puck. Once the puck is passed away... No checking. Body contact sure. No checking. A check or excessive contact would be come charging.
Official NHL RULE BOOK
Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
48.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for this rule.
48.3 Major Penalty - For a violation of this rule, a major penalty shall be assessed (see 48.4).
48.4 Game Misconduct – An automatic game misconduct penalty shall be assessed whenever a major penalty is assessed under this rule.
48.5 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head
48.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under this rule, in either regular League or playoff games, shall be suspended automatically for the next game his team plays. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
From: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=64063
Follow this rule with a modification to include any head contact during a check or a check the cause head contact to the boards or ice. It is already in the rule book. Don't use adult rules for youth ice hockey. Modify the rules to manage the understanding and capacities of the child and teen player. Modified rules have to be put in place.
Checking has an intended purpose that must be regulated for that purpose. In is not free reign to harm a child by hitting them as hard as they can be hit. As I type this, I can't believe I didn't speak out sooner. It sounds so ridiculous that we allow our kids to be hit under the disguise of a hockey check. We need to change the rules for youth leagues now! No head contact. No excessive force. Physical play and regulated shoulder and hip checks are acceptable. We as adults must regulate the game. If your child is lucky enough to go into a professional adult league... as adults they can interpret the rule book.
The boards surrounding the ice help keep the puck in play and they can also be used as tools to play the puck. Players are permitted to "bodycheck" opponents into the boards as a means of stopping progress. The referees, linesmen and the outsides of the goal are "in play" and do not cause a stoppage of the game when the puck or players are influenced (by either bouncing or colliding) into them. Play can be stopped if the goal is knocked out of position. Play often proceeds for minutes without interruption. When play is stopped, it is restarted with a faceoff. Two players "face" each other and an official drops the puck to the ice, where the two players attempt to gain control of the puck. Markings on the ice indicate the locations for the "faceoff" and guide the positioning of players.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey
I see this definition states players are permitted to "bodycheck" the players into the boards as a means of stopping progress. I am assuming it means progress of the play and not the future development of the player. It doesn't mention anything about the intensity of the hit. How hard of a check is needed to stop the progress of the play? Very little. So why do we allow for excessive force in the bodychecks? Force that goes above and beyond stopping the progress of play is not acceptable in youth ice hockey.
Body checking
Using the body to knock an opponent against the boards or to the ice. This is often referred to as simply checking or hitting and is only permitted on an opponent with possession of the puck. Body checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Charging, hitting from behind and boarding are examples of illegal hits, due to their dangerous nature and increased likelihood of causing serious injury. In women's ice hockey, any body checking is a penalty and is also usually not allowed in amateur leagues and leagues with young children. Some intramural university leagues do not permit bodychecking, in order to avoid injury and incidents of fighting. "Leaning" against opponents is an alternative to body checking but, if abused, may be penalized for holding.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_(ice_hockey)
I see this definition states using the body to knock the player against the boards or to the ice. And And it is only permitted on an opponent with the possession of the puck. HOW many times have you seen a child checked without possession? It does state checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Maybe recklessly needs to defined better in youth ice hockey. I would include reckless be defined in part as excessive force.
Hip-checking
When a player drops to a near-crouching stance and swings his hips toward an opposing player, sending the opponent off balance, often falling to the ice. Mostly done up against the boards. A hit below the knees is considered an infraction in the National Hockey League, and called "clipping".
Shoulder-checking
The most common type of body-check, in which a player puts his shoulder into his opponent to muscle the opponent out of position. The elbow must be tucked in, or the player risks taking a penalty for elbowing.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_(ice_hockey)
Here are two types of checks. Hip and Shoulder. Why not only allow strict interpretation of this in youth ice hockey. Hip contact or shoulder contact. Remove full force hits into the chest of a player. There is no such thing as a Chest Checking in hockey. Hip or Shoulder! Let the kids learn this first.
Checking in ice hockey is the act of physically keeping an opposing player in check. It is not a penalty.
There are multiple types of checking:
Body checking
Using the hip or body to contact an opponent in possession of the puck from the side or front. This is often referred to as simply checking.
From: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Checking_%28hockey%29
This definition states the act of physically keeping an opposing player in check. How about keeping the checker in check. It states using hip or body contact on a player in possession with the puck. I can see one rule change that could occur is that you can't hit a player that does not have the puck. That means you can't hit them while going to the puck. You can't hit them if they are standing next to the puck. You can't hit them if they released the puck. I am talking about checking. Physical play and body pushing is not the issue. Brutal force and excessive force is the issue.
check or checking:
any contact initiated by a defending player against an opponent to get the puck away from him or slow him down; there are two main types of checks: stick check and body check; these are only allowed against a player in control of the puck or against the last player to control it immediately after he gives it up; checking after too many steps or strides becomes charging.
From: http://www.firstbasesports.com/hockey_glossary.html
This definition says any contact but goes on to say there are two main checks which are stick checks and body checks. Stick checks are great. It does say a check can go to the player that is in control of the puck or against the last player to control it immediately after he gives it up. Hmm the later is fairly vague especially to kids but understood at the pro-levels. It is not understood by children and teens. Simply change the rules of body checking to the player who has control of the puck. Once the puck is passed away... No checking. Body contact sure. No checking. A check or excessive contact would be come charging.
Official NHL RULE BOOK
Rule 48 - Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
48.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for this rule.
48.3 Major Penalty - For a violation of this rule, a major penalty shall be assessed (see 48.4).
48.4 Game Misconduct – An automatic game misconduct penalty shall be assessed whenever a major penalty is assessed under this rule.
48.5 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head
48.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under this rule, in either regular League or playoff games, shall be suspended automatically for the next game his team plays. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
From: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=64063
Follow this rule with a modification to include any head contact during a check or a check the cause head contact to the boards or ice. It is already in the rule book. Don't use adult rules for youth ice hockey. Modify the rules to manage the understanding and capacities of the child and teen player. Modified rules have to be put in place.
Checking has an intended purpose that must be regulated for that purpose. In is not free reign to harm a child by hitting them as hard as they can be hit. As I type this, I can't believe I didn't speak out sooner. It sounds so ridiculous that we allow our kids to be hit under the disguise of a hockey check. We need to change the rules for youth leagues now! No head contact. No excessive force. Physical play and regulated shoulder and hip checks are acceptable. We as adults must regulate the game. If your child is lucky enough to go into a professional adult league... as adults they can interpret the rule book.
No Head Hits In Youth Ice Hockey: Rule Changes Are Needed on Player Contact
Checking is used to move a player off the puck.
It is not a skill to be used to harm a child. We are confused as players and parents when it comes to understanding the difference between the skill of checking and brutal unregulated hitting. The latter has no place in youth ice hockey.
An appropriate shoulder check will move a player off the puck with minimal impact to the opposing player. There is a difference between checking and pounding a player into the boards or onto their back. And sadly the appropriate penalties for bad, inappropriate and brutal hits don't exist in youth ice hockey. Two minutes is nothing. Five minutes is nothing. Ten minutes is nothing. Not getting a head injury is everything.
Intention and harm are not the issues. Potential harm is. Saving one child harm is why I am taking this issue up. The rules need to be changed to immediately remove a player from the ice for a head hit. Immediate penalties will teach children and teenagers how to appropriately and safely use the checking skill.
I encourage all parents to start calling their hockey clubs to get involved and express an opinion on head hits and brutal hits. I believe a push from parents with the support of their hockey clubs (and 99% want your input and will support you) will cause quicker rule changes in youth ice hockey. A child can not be put on the ice as a free target. They must be protected. The rules must change. The weight and height differences between 11 and 16 are drastic. A 75 pound player has no defense against a 120 pound player. The hockey clubs and parents must get invovled to make drastic changes to protect our children from head hits and brutal hits.
I propose the following rule changes, below, to youth ice hockey. It is a starting point for discussions.
No contact to the head. No intentional player contact that causes head contact to the boards or ice surface. Any head contact by a player or head contact caused by a player will lead to an immediate game ejection and will be reviewed for future penalties. If the penalty occurs beyond the mid way point of a game then the player will also miss the first half of the following game.
A player that is called for hitting a player in the back will be given an automatic 10 minute misconduct penalty.
A player that uses excessive force in a check will be assessed a 10 minute misconduct when head contact is not an issue.
A player identified to be purposely taking runs at players will be ejected from the game and subjected to review.
A player that recieves three penalties during a game will no longer be able to play in that game.
These are not difficult penalties to assess or rules to add to the game of youth ice hockey. They are easily understood. Before you rebuke or is it the Scottish rubute these... ask yourself the following questions:
1. How many times has your child gotten three penalties in one game? Not many.
2. How many times has your child been hit in the back for a boarding penalty? It's not uncommon.
3. How many times have you seen a child hit in the head during a game? Just about every game.
4. Is size difference an issue? Yes.
5. Do you want you child harmed? No.
6. Would youth ice hockey still be a great experience for your child if checking and head hits were better managed? Yes.
7. Why haven't the rules been changed sooner? Beats me.
The bottom line is how many times are kids getting hit in the head or severly hit during a game. Not how many times do these hits cause harm. Tracking 6 injuries is not the same as noting 21 brutal hits or head contacts over the same period of time. My goal is to reduce the latter to reduce the number of injuries.
It is not a skill to be used to harm a child. We are confused as players and parents when it comes to understanding the difference between the skill of checking and brutal unregulated hitting. The latter has no place in youth ice hockey.
An appropriate shoulder check will move a player off the puck with minimal impact to the opposing player. There is a difference between checking and pounding a player into the boards or onto their back. And sadly the appropriate penalties for bad, inappropriate and brutal hits don't exist in youth ice hockey. Two minutes is nothing. Five minutes is nothing. Ten minutes is nothing. Not getting a head injury is everything.
Intention and harm are not the issues. Potential harm is. Saving one child harm is why I am taking this issue up. The rules need to be changed to immediately remove a player from the ice for a head hit. Immediate penalties will teach children and teenagers how to appropriately and safely use the checking skill.
I encourage all parents to start calling their hockey clubs to get involved and express an opinion on head hits and brutal hits. I believe a push from parents with the support of their hockey clubs (and 99% want your input and will support you) will cause quicker rule changes in youth ice hockey. A child can not be put on the ice as a free target. They must be protected. The rules must change. The weight and height differences between 11 and 16 are drastic. A 75 pound player has no defense against a 120 pound player. The hockey clubs and parents must get invovled to make drastic changes to protect our children from head hits and brutal hits.
I propose the following rule changes, below, to youth ice hockey. It is a starting point for discussions.
No contact to the head. No intentional player contact that causes head contact to the boards or ice surface. Any head contact by a player or head contact caused by a player will lead to an immediate game ejection and will be reviewed for future penalties. If the penalty occurs beyond the mid way point of a game then the player will also miss the first half of the following game.
A player that is called for hitting a player in the back will be given an automatic 10 minute misconduct penalty.
A player that uses excessive force in a check will be assessed a 10 minute misconduct when head contact is not an issue.
A player identified to be purposely taking runs at players will be ejected from the game and subjected to review.
A player that recieves three penalties during a game will no longer be able to play in that game.
These are not difficult penalties to assess or rules to add to the game of youth ice hockey. They are easily understood. Before you rebuke or is it the Scottish rubute these... ask yourself the following questions:
1. How many times has your child gotten three penalties in one game? Not many.
2. How many times has your child been hit in the back for a boarding penalty? It's not uncommon.
3. How many times have you seen a child hit in the head during a game? Just about every game.
4. Is size difference an issue? Yes.
5. Do you want you child harmed? No.
6. Would youth ice hockey still be a great experience for your child if checking and head hits were better managed? Yes.
7. Why haven't the rules been changed sooner? Beats me.
The bottom line is how many times are kids getting hit in the head or severly hit during a game. Not how many times do these hits cause harm. Tracking 6 injuries is not the same as noting 21 brutal hits or head contacts over the same period of time. My goal is to reduce the latter to reduce the number of injuries.
Head Hits Youth Ice Hockey: Pass or Fail: Mayo Clinic's suggestion that NHL ban all hits to head
Youth ice hockey is a place for children and teenagers to learn the skills of the game. Not a place to become targets for inappropriate and brutal hits. Just because a child is playing a physical sport, it is not justification for hits to the head or hits that cause secondary head-hits.
Here is another article stating head hits need to be banned in the NHL level. They should be immediately banned from all youth ice hockey leagues.
Here is the original link with video intact: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Pass-or-Fail-Mayo-Clinic-s-suggestion-that-NHL-?urn=nhl-278850 By Greg Wyshynski
Thu Oct 21 07:59am PDT
Pass or Fail: Mayo Clinic's suggestion that NHL ban all hits to head
By Greg Wyshynski
There's no avoiding the concussion issue in professional sports any longer.
It's everywhere, whether it's the NFL cracking down on helmet-to-helmet hits or horrific tales of concussed players' lives after retirement or a parade of head injuries in the NHL, including another one Wednesday night to Los Angeles Kings defenseman Drew Doughty(notes) via Erik Cole(notes) of the Carolina Hurricanes:
According to Helene Elliott of the LA Times, it's a "possible concussion" for Doughty, which would be his first significant NHL injury.
Also significant this week for head injuries: The Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center Ice Hockey Summit: Action on Concussion, which has been ongoing in Rochester, Minn., and could be a landmark symposium for the future of player safety.
Jeff Klein of the New York Times has been chronicling the conference, including the fact that the concussion rate for women's NCAA hockey is higher than that for NCAA football; that "helmets are not the answer to reducing the high rates of concussion in hockey"; and the solution to the concussion issue most frequently suggested by the experts on hand: a total ban on all checks to the head, blindside or otherwise.
Check out the reporting, read the rest of the post, and then come back to this question in the comments:
Pass or Fail: Prohibiting any contact to the head on a check in the NHL, for the sake of player safety.
Coming up, news from the Mayo Clinic conference and the basis for these recommendations.
From Jeff Klein of the NY Times, on the Mayo Clinic conference's main findings:
The N.H.L. averages about 75 concussions a season, said Dr. Paul Comper, a Toronto neuropsychologist and consultant for the players association. "In my opinion, really what you should do is get rid of all targeted head hits," Comper said. He called the N.H.L.'s adoption of its current head-checking rule "a step in the right direction."
Kerry Fraser, who retired as a referee in April after 29 seasons, said banning hits to the head was necessary.
"The N.H.L. must outlaw head hits," said Fraser, who criticized an N.H.L. explanatory video showing what the league called "an example of a legal shoulder check to the head." In the clip, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Chris Pronger(notes) uses his shoulder to strike the Rangers Jody Shelley(notes) in the head, snapping Shelley's head.
According to statistics in Comper's study, 60 percent of N.H.L. concussions come from checks delivered with the shoulder to the head.
Here's the Chris Pronger hit on Jody Shelley; wonder if they ever talk about this at team meals now?
From the Star Tribune, Dr. Michael Stuart of the Mayo Clinic said:
The suggestions proposed at the Mayo summit include a total ban on contact with the head, at all levels of hockey; mandatory education of coaches, parents, referees and physicians about how to recognize, treat and prevent concussions; and prohibiting athletes from returning to play until they are cleared by a doctor. When the conference ended, many participants pledged to keep working together, which is exactly what Smith and Stuart hoped.
"Change is not going to happen overnight,'' said Stuart, co-director of the Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center and chief medical officer for USA Hockey. "At the same time, the clock is ticking. If we say we need additional long-term injury research to validate any recommendation, there will be a lot of athletes who will suffer in the interim.''
And here is a news report from Vancouver Island about the conference and recent new rules in other sports for head injuries:
If you've read this blog, you know where we stand: Hockey is an inherently violent game, and the players in the NHL know that, as they aspired to reach the professional level.
The conference's suggestions for better medical evaluation and aftercare, as well as better education for everyone in hockey on all levels, is valorous. But a ban on contact with the head in the NHL isn't something with which we agree.
Getting injurious, blindside hits out of the NHL is (pardon the awful pun) a no-brainer for the league, and it's taken steps towards that end. Banning all hits to the head, at this point, will change the fundamentals of the game too dramatically.
Which is why, as the conference argues, you start with the kids. Ban head shots on lower levels, and you begin to change the culture. It's the same thing with fighting, which the conference also seeks to ban: There's a way to minimize it organically over the years that wouldn't require a formal "banning" in the NHL.
At this point, the argument for banning hits to the head in the NHL resembles the abstinence debate for teen sexuality: You can preach it all you want, but instincts and emotions could trump education and virtue. It's human nature; which is why any behavioral changes need to happen generationally and not with one swift change to the rulebook. Because that's how you make it a matter of respect rather a fear of recourse.
Here is another article stating head hits need to be banned in the NHL level. They should be immediately banned from all youth ice hockey leagues.
Here is the original link with video intact: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Pass-or-Fail-Mayo-Clinic-s-suggestion-that-NHL-?urn=nhl-278850 By Greg Wyshynski
Thu Oct 21 07:59am PDT
Pass or Fail: Mayo Clinic's suggestion that NHL ban all hits to head
By Greg Wyshynski
There's no avoiding the concussion issue in professional sports any longer.
It's everywhere, whether it's the NFL cracking down on helmet-to-helmet hits or horrific tales of concussed players' lives after retirement or a parade of head injuries in the NHL, including another one Wednesday night to Los Angeles Kings defenseman Drew Doughty(notes) via Erik Cole(notes) of the Carolina Hurricanes:
According to Helene Elliott of the LA Times, it's a "possible concussion" for Doughty, which would be his first significant NHL injury.
Also significant this week for head injuries: The Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center Ice Hockey Summit: Action on Concussion, which has been ongoing in Rochester, Minn., and could be a landmark symposium for the future of player safety.
Jeff Klein of the New York Times has been chronicling the conference, including the fact that the concussion rate for women's NCAA hockey is higher than that for NCAA football; that "helmets are not the answer to reducing the high rates of concussion in hockey"; and the solution to the concussion issue most frequently suggested by the experts on hand: a total ban on all checks to the head, blindside or otherwise.
Check out the reporting, read the rest of the post, and then come back to this question in the comments:
Pass or Fail: Prohibiting any contact to the head on a check in the NHL, for the sake of player safety.
Coming up, news from the Mayo Clinic conference and the basis for these recommendations.
From Jeff Klein of the NY Times, on the Mayo Clinic conference's main findings:
The N.H.L. averages about 75 concussions a season, said Dr. Paul Comper, a Toronto neuropsychologist and consultant for the players association. "In my opinion, really what you should do is get rid of all targeted head hits," Comper said. He called the N.H.L.'s adoption of its current head-checking rule "a step in the right direction."
Kerry Fraser, who retired as a referee in April after 29 seasons, said banning hits to the head was necessary.
"The N.H.L. must outlaw head hits," said Fraser, who criticized an N.H.L. explanatory video showing what the league called "an example of a legal shoulder check to the head." In the clip, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Chris Pronger(notes) uses his shoulder to strike the Rangers Jody Shelley(notes) in the head, snapping Shelley's head.
According to statistics in Comper's study, 60 percent of N.H.L. concussions come from checks delivered with the shoulder to the head.
Here's the Chris Pronger hit on Jody Shelley; wonder if they ever talk about this at team meals now?
From the Star Tribune, Dr. Michael Stuart of the Mayo Clinic said:
The suggestions proposed at the Mayo summit include a total ban on contact with the head, at all levels of hockey; mandatory education of coaches, parents, referees and physicians about how to recognize, treat and prevent concussions; and prohibiting athletes from returning to play until they are cleared by a doctor. When the conference ended, many participants pledged to keep working together, which is exactly what Smith and Stuart hoped.
"Change is not going to happen overnight,'' said Stuart, co-director of the Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center and chief medical officer for USA Hockey. "At the same time, the clock is ticking. If we say we need additional long-term injury research to validate any recommendation, there will be a lot of athletes who will suffer in the interim.''
And here is a news report from Vancouver Island about the conference and recent new rules in other sports for head injuries:
If you've read this blog, you know where we stand: Hockey is an inherently violent game, and the players in the NHL know that, as they aspired to reach the professional level.
The conference's suggestions for better medical evaluation and aftercare, as well as better education for everyone in hockey on all levels, is valorous. But a ban on contact with the head in the NHL isn't something with which we agree.
Getting injurious, blindside hits out of the NHL is (pardon the awful pun) a no-brainer for the league, and it's taken steps towards that end. Banning all hits to the head, at this point, will change the fundamentals of the game too dramatically.
Which is why, as the conference argues, you start with the kids. Ban head shots on lower levels, and you begin to change the culture. It's the same thing with fighting, which the conference also seeks to ban: There's a way to minimize it organically over the years that wouldn't require a formal "banning" in the NHL.
At this point, the argument for banning hits to the head in the NHL resembles the abstinence debate for teen sexuality: You can preach it all you want, but instincts and emotions could trump education and virtue. It's human nature; which is why any behavioral changes need to happen generationally and not with one swift change to the rulebook. Because that's how you make it a matter of respect rather a fear of recourse.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Protecting Our Children From Head Injuries In Youth Ice Hockey
After great thought, I decided there has to be a better why for our children to learn to play the wonderful game of ice hockey and be better protected from head injury. Today, I start to discover they better way. I figured the best place to start is with USA Hockey. My son is registered with them to play in his league. I also figured I would start by asking questions and finding out what is currently going on in youth ice hockey. I know head injuries are a concern. The best way to discover a better way is to find out what is currently being done. I have no idea what changes may be coming or how issues are being addressed. So questions it is.
Here is a draft of my first letter to USA Hockey. I will post the response. I encourage any parent that is interested in finding a better way for our children to play youth ice hockey and be better protected from head-injury to friend my blog. The more people that express concern, the louder the voice. I encourage you to become a voice for our children.
The Letter: Sent to USA Hockey Membership Questions on their home page.
My son has been playing youth ice hockey for many years. He began checking hockey last year. Since watching the games, with checking introduced, I realized most kids don’t know how to check and are pretty much practicing hitting during a game. Who are they hitting? Other kids. Brutal hits are often fluffed off as part of the game or as learning. The size difference between players can be 50 or 60 pounds. That is ridiculous. As adults we can do more to protect our kids.
Many players do not know how to check and the penalties for bad-checks, head-shots, boarding and malicious hits are really no deterrent to a child or teenager. 2 minutes or 5 minutes is nothing to a child or teenager. The occasional 10 minute misconduct or major typically comes after a child is hurt. Immediate game ejections should take place. You have to get players attention before you can change behavior. It is quite simple. The penalties are too light. The NHL and NFL have finally decided to crack down on head hits and malicious hits. USA Hockey has to take the lead for youth ice hockey and do the same. I am wondering what is being done?
No contact to the head. No intentional player contact that causes head contact to the boards or ice surface. Any head contact by a player or head contact caused by a player will lead to an immediate game ejection and will be reviewed for future penalties. A clear rule similar to this is needed in youth ice hockey. Is something like this being worked on?
I am wondering what USA Hockey is doing to better deter the above type of hits that cause head trauma? How are you protecting our children from serious injury? How are you addressing unskilled checks and players that take runs at kids? Why don’t you have stronger penalties for head-hits and boarding?
Many European clubs don’t introduce checking too much later. They believe skating and skills need to come first. They recognize the huge weight and size disparities in 11-16 years olds. What is USA Hockey doing to create non-checking youth leagues or skill leagues or modified checking leagues?
I am curious because I believe that just because hockey is a physical sport, it is not justification to let out children get plowed into to the boards or suffer head injuries. That’s not hockey. Penalties that mean something to children and teenagers have to be implemented to both protect them and teach them the correct way to check and play with a physical presence. I’d like to know what USA hockey is doing to address this.
Gary Pilarchik.
Here is a draft of my first letter to USA Hockey. I will post the response. I encourage any parent that is interested in finding a better way for our children to play youth ice hockey and be better protected from head-injury to friend my blog. The more people that express concern, the louder the voice. I encourage you to become a voice for our children.
The Letter: Sent to USA Hockey Membership Questions on their home page.
My son has been playing youth ice hockey for many years. He began checking hockey last year. Since watching the games, with checking introduced, I realized most kids don’t know how to check and are pretty much practicing hitting during a game. Who are they hitting? Other kids. Brutal hits are often fluffed off as part of the game or as learning. The size difference between players can be 50 or 60 pounds. That is ridiculous. As adults we can do more to protect our kids.
Many players do not know how to check and the penalties for bad-checks, head-shots, boarding and malicious hits are really no deterrent to a child or teenager. 2 minutes or 5 minutes is nothing to a child or teenager. The occasional 10 minute misconduct or major typically comes after a child is hurt. Immediate game ejections should take place. You have to get players attention before you can change behavior. It is quite simple. The penalties are too light. The NHL and NFL have finally decided to crack down on head hits and malicious hits. USA Hockey has to take the lead for youth ice hockey and do the same. I am wondering what is being done?
No contact to the head. No intentional player contact that causes head contact to the boards or ice surface. Any head contact by a player or head contact caused by a player will lead to an immediate game ejection and will be reviewed for future penalties. A clear rule similar to this is needed in youth ice hockey. Is something like this being worked on?
I am wondering what USA Hockey is doing to better deter the above type of hits that cause head trauma? How are you protecting our children from serious injury? How are you addressing unskilled checks and players that take runs at kids? Why don’t you have stronger penalties for head-hits and boarding?
Many European clubs don’t introduce checking too much later. They believe skating and skills need to come first. They recognize the huge weight and size disparities in 11-16 years olds. What is USA Hockey doing to create non-checking youth leagues or skill leagues or modified checking leagues?
I am curious because I believe that just because hockey is a physical sport, it is not justification to let out children get plowed into to the boards or suffer head injuries. That’s not hockey. Penalties that mean something to children and teenagers have to be implemented to both protect them and teach them the correct way to check and play with a physical presence. I’d like to know what USA hockey is doing to address this.
Gary Pilarchik.
Former N.H.L. Ref Calls for Outlawing of Hits to the Head
October 19, 2010, 10:23 pm
Former N.H.L. Ref Calls for Outlawing of Hits to the Head
By JEFF Z. KLEIN
ROCHESTER, Minn. — Kerry Fraser retired at the end of last season after 30 years and 1,904 regular-season and 260 playoff games as an N.H.L. referee, more than any other official, and through all of that he was contractually obligated to make no public statements about the game.
He is quiet no longer, as he demonstrated when he addressed the Mayo Clinic conference on hockey concussions here late Tuesday afternoon.
“The N.H.L. must outlaw head hits,” Fraser said, not just blind-side hits to the head and deliberate head shots, which became illegal this season. He was also sharply critical of what he saw as the league’s previous ambivalence on such checks, which he said fostered “a culture that allows head hits.”
He cited as evidence two game-misconduct calls for head shots he made late in his career that were rescinded by league supervisors.
“The N.H.L. has wisely decided — a little too long in coming — to take care of head hits,” Fraser said, referring to the rule mandating a major and game misconduct for blindside checks to the head and checks that target the head. But he also said the standard did not go far enough.
Fraser showed the league’s standard-of-enforcement video that illustrates what is illegal and what is legal, drawing attention to this hit by Philadelphia’s Chris Pronger on the Rangers’ Jody Shelley:
Read more…
Check out the full article. http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/
Former N.H.L. Ref Calls for Outlawing of Hits to the Head
By JEFF Z. KLEIN
ROCHESTER, Minn. — Kerry Fraser retired at the end of last season after 30 years and 1,904 regular-season and 260 playoff games as an N.H.L. referee, more than any other official, and through all of that he was contractually obligated to make no public statements about the game.
He is quiet no longer, as he demonstrated when he addressed the Mayo Clinic conference on hockey concussions here late Tuesday afternoon.
“The N.H.L. must outlaw head hits,” Fraser said, not just blind-side hits to the head and deliberate head shots, which became illegal this season. He was also sharply critical of what he saw as the league’s previous ambivalence on such checks, which he said fostered “a culture that allows head hits.”
He cited as evidence two game-misconduct calls for head shots he made late in his career that were rescinded by league supervisors.
“The N.H.L. has wisely decided — a little too long in coming — to take care of head hits,” Fraser said, referring to the rule mandating a major and game misconduct for blindside checks to the head and checks that target the head. But he also said the standard did not go far enough.
Fraser showed the league’s standard-of-enforcement video that illustrates what is illegal and what is legal, drawing attention to this hit by Philadelphia’s Chris Pronger on the Rangers’ Jody Shelley:
Read more…
Check out the full article. http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/
Safety in Youth Ice Hockey: The Effects of Body Checking
Many European youth ice hockey programs do not introduce checking until much later then the USA programs. Their focus is on skill development. Speed, stick handling and game play are the focus. Below is an article that talks about checking and fair play. Here is the conclusion that can be found a bit further down. I thought it was interesting. The disparites in size are being recognized by the medical profession.
CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that a high proportion of youth hockey injuries are attributable to checking and that limiting checking can reduce injuries. Disparities in size and strength can further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions. Variations in size and strength are present in all age groups but are most pronounced among the bantam-level players (ages 14 to 15 years). Therefore, minimizing checking and other high-impact collisions in this age group could further reduce injuries.
The more thought I put into youth ice hockey and injuries due to checking the more I wonder why things are done as they are in the US. There is clear evidence that size differences are dramatic. That being said, can't checking wait while players learn to be better skaters, better stick handlers and just better players mentally? Yes. Why aren't we doing more to address this in the USA youth hockey programs. Even introducing checking slowly and only allowing shoulder to shoulder hits might be an option. Checking must be taught as a skill and pefected. It should not be a skill practiced on our kids.
Here is a PDF of the full article.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;105/3/657.pdf
ABSTRACT
Ice hockey is a sport enjoyed by many young people. The occurrence of injury can offset what may otherwise be a positive experience. A high proportion of injuries in hockey appear to result from intentional body contact or the practice of checking. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting checking in hockey players 15 years of age and younger as a means to reduce injuries. Strategies such as the fair play concept can also help decrease injuries that result from penalties or unnecessary contact.
Ice hockey is played by approximately 200 000 children in the United States1 and a similar number in Canada. It is classified as a collision sport by the American Academy of Pediatrics because of the intentional body contact, called body checking, that occurs. Because collisions in this sport may occur at high speeds, participants are at risk for serious injury. In recent years, an increase in the number of serious head and neck injuries related to body checking has alarmed the hockey community and has led to a reassessment of the role of body checking in the various classifications of youth hockey2-4: miteages 8 and 9 years; squirtages 10 and 11 years; peeweeages 12 and 13 years; and bantamages 14 and 15 years.
In the 1960s, an alarming number of facial injuries in youth hockey players led to the mandatory use of helmets with a face mask.5 The acceptance and use of the combination helmet-face mask was remarkably successful in virtually eliminating facial trauma. However, shortly after the introduction of the helmet-face mask, an increase in the number of neck and spinal injuries was noted.4 The improvement in equipment with the helmet-face mask1,6 was believed to create a false sense of protection from serious injury. A similar situation was observed in football. With additional protection afforded by improved helmets and face masks in the 1950s, there was an increase in cervical spine injuries. The number of spinal injuries did not start decreasing until rule changes in the 1970s prohibited head-first contact. Rule changes instituted in the mid-1970s substantially decreased, but did not eliminate, these tragic injuries. The ice hockey community wanted to learn from the experience in football and avoid a paradoxical increase in injury as a response to wearing protective equipment. This concern led to investigations of the incidence and causes of head, neck, and spine injuries.7-9
A Canadian study in 19842 revealed 42 spinal injuries in hockey players reported to the Committee on Prevention of Spinal Injuries. The median age of the injured players was 17 years. Of the 42 players, 28 had spinal cord injuries, of which 17 had complete paralysis below the vertebral level of the injury. Being body checked from behind, resulting in a collision with the boards, was the most common mechanism of injury. A 1987 study7 of high school hockey players revealed that head and neck injuries accounted for 22% of the total number of injuries. The same study showed that body checking was associated with 38% of the total number of injuries. Sixty-six percent of the players surveyed believed that the requirement of a face mask allowed them to be more aggressive in their style of play. The authors of this study recommended rule changes to limit or eliminate body checking to reduce injuries.
A more recent US study reported injuries in youth hockey players 9 to 15 years old.1 Head and neck injuries accounted for 23% of the total number of injuries. Body checking accounted for 86% of all injuries that occurred during games. Fifty-five percent of the players thought that their helmets and face masks protected them from injuries. Of particular interest is that size differences among players in this series increased with age, with bantam-level players (ages 14 and 15 years) showing the most variation, with reported differences between the smallest and largest players of 53 kg in body weight and 55 cm in height. The bantam-level players sustained the most injuries (54%).
Another Canadian study10 compared peewee-level players (ages 12 and 13 years) from a league that allowed body checking with another league that did not. Players in the league that allowed body checking had a fracture rate 12 times higher than the rate of the other league. Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players. Players in the same age group could vary significantly in the amount of force they could impart on another player and/or withstand from another player. In 1990, the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine reported that although the incidence of serious injuries at the mite and squirt level was quite low, serious injuries were noted at the peewee level. Therefore, they recommended banning body checking at the peewee level (ages 12 and 13 years) and below.11
An innovative, unique concept for improved sportsmanship and injury reduction in youth hockey called fair-play has been introduced recently.12 The fair-play concept of scoring ice hockey games, seasons, or tournaments was developed in response to the perceived increase in violence in youth hockey. The system rewards teams and individual players with few penalties and punishes teams and players with larger numbers of penalties. The authors of this concept believe that the system decreases penalties, intimidation, and violence during hockey and creates a climate that promotes fun and player development.
The potential benefits for the fair-play concept are demonstrated in a recent study13 involving a youth hockey tournament. The participants were high school students younger than 20 years old, who played the qualifying rounds of the tournament using fair-play guidelines (points are awarded for playing without excessive penalties) and the championship round following regular rules. When the fair-play and regular rules portions of the tournament were compared, the injury rate was 4 times higher during the regular rules portion of the tournament. A doubling of the number of penalties and injury rate during the championship round occurred when fair-play rules were suspended.
CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that a high proportion of youth hockey injuries are attributable to checking and that limiting checking can reduce injuries. Disparities in size and strength can further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions. Variations in size and strength are present in all age groups but are most pronounced among the bantam-level players (ages 14 to 15 years). Therefore, minimizing checking and other high-impact collisions in this age group could further reduce injuries.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Top
In the interest of enhancing safety in youth ice hockey, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the following.
Body checking should not be allowed in youth hockey for children age 15 years or younger.
Good sportsmanship programs, such as the fair-play concept, have been shown to reduce injury and penalty rates and should be adopted for all levels of youth hockey.
Youth hockey programs need to educate players, coaches, and parents about the importance of knowing and following the rules as well as the dangers of body checking another player from behind.
COMMITTEE ON SPORTS MEDICINE & FITNESS, 1999-2000
Steven J. Anderson, MD, Chairperson
Bernard A. Griesemer, MD
Miriam D. Johnson, MD
Thomas J. Martin, MD
Larry G. McLain, MD
Thomas W. Rowland, MD
Eric Small, MD
CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that a high proportion of youth hockey injuries are attributable to checking and that limiting checking can reduce injuries. Disparities in size and strength can further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions. Variations in size and strength are present in all age groups but are most pronounced among the bantam-level players (ages 14 to 15 years). Therefore, minimizing checking and other high-impact collisions in this age group could further reduce injuries.
The more thought I put into youth ice hockey and injuries due to checking the more I wonder why things are done as they are in the US. There is clear evidence that size differences are dramatic. That being said, can't checking wait while players learn to be better skaters, better stick handlers and just better players mentally? Yes. Why aren't we doing more to address this in the USA youth hockey programs. Even introducing checking slowly and only allowing shoulder to shoulder hits might be an option. Checking must be taught as a skill and pefected. It should not be a skill practiced on our kids.
Here is a PDF of the full article.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;105/3/657.pdf
ABSTRACT
Ice hockey is a sport enjoyed by many young people. The occurrence of injury can offset what may otherwise be a positive experience. A high proportion of injuries in hockey appear to result from intentional body contact or the practice of checking. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting checking in hockey players 15 years of age and younger as a means to reduce injuries. Strategies such as the fair play concept can also help decrease injuries that result from penalties or unnecessary contact.
Ice hockey is played by approximately 200 000 children in the United States1 and a similar number in Canada. It is classified as a collision sport by the American Academy of Pediatrics because of the intentional body contact, called body checking, that occurs. Because collisions in this sport may occur at high speeds, participants are at risk for serious injury. In recent years, an increase in the number of serious head and neck injuries related to body checking has alarmed the hockey community and has led to a reassessment of the role of body checking in the various classifications of youth hockey2-4: miteages 8 and 9 years; squirtages 10 and 11 years; peeweeages 12 and 13 years; and bantamages 14 and 15 years.
In the 1960s, an alarming number of facial injuries in youth hockey players led to the mandatory use of helmets with a face mask.5 The acceptance and use of the combination helmet-face mask was remarkably successful in virtually eliminating facial trauma. However, shortly after the introduction of the helmet-face mask, an increase in the number of neck and spinal injuries was noted.4 The improvement in equipment with the helmet-face mask1,6 was believed to create a false sense of protection from serious injury. A similar situation was observed in football. With additional protection afforded by improved helmets and face masks in the 1950s, there was an increase in cervical spine injuries. The number of spinal injuries did not start decreasing until rule changes in the 1970s prohibited head-first contact. Rule changes instituted in the mid-1970s substantially decreased, but did not eliminate, these tragic injuries. The ice hockey community wanted to learn from the experience in football and avoid a paradoxical increase in injury as a response to wearing protective equipment. This concern led to investigations of the incidence and causes of head, neck, and spine injuries.7-9
A Canadian study in 19842 revealed 42 spinal injuries in hockey players reported to the Committee on Prevention of Spinal Injuries. The median age of the injured players was 17 years. Of the 42 players, 28 had spinal cord injuries, of which 17 had complete paralysis below the vertebral level of the injury. Being body checked from behind, resulting in a collision with the boards, was the most common mechanism of injury. A 1987 study7 of high school hockey players revealed that head and neck injuries accounted for 22% of the total number of injuries. The same study showed that body checking was associated with 38% of the total number of injuries. Sixty-six percent of the players surveyed believed that the requirement of a face mask allowed them to be more aggressive in their style of play. The authors of this study recommended rule changes to limit or eliminate body checking to reduce injuries.
A more recent US study reported injuries in youth hockey players 9 to 15 years old.1 Head and neck injuries accounted for 23% of the total number of injuries. Body checking accounted for 86% of all injuries that occurred during games. Fifty-five percent of the players thought that their helmets and face masks protected them from injuries. Of particular interest is that size differences among players in this series increased with age, with bantam-level players (ages 14 and 15 years) showing the most variation, with reported differences between the smallest and largest players of 53 kg in body weight and 55 cm in height. The bantam-level players sustained the most injuries (54%).
Another Canadian study10 compared peewee-level players (ages 12 and 13 years) from a league that allowed body checking with another league that did not. Players in the league that allowed body checking had a fracture rate 12 times higher than the rate of the other league. Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players. Players in the same age group could vary significantly in the amount of force they could impart on another player and/or withstand from another player. In 1990, the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine reported that although the incidence of serious injuries at the mite and squirt level was quite low, serious injuries were noted at the peewee level. Therefore, they recommended banning body checking at the peewee level (ages 12 and 13 years) and below.11
An innovative, unique concept for improved sportsmanship and injury reduction in youth hockey called fair-play has been introduced recently.12 The fair-play concept of scoring ice hockey games, seasons, or tournaments was developed in response to the perceived increase in violence in youth hockey. The system rewards teams and individual players with few penalties and punishes teams and players with larger numbers of penalties. The authors of this concept believe that the system decreases penalties, intimidation, and violence during hockey and creates a climate that promotes fun and player development.
The potential benefits for the fair-play concept are demonstrated in a recent study13 involving a youth hockey tournament. The participants were high school students younger than 20 years old, who played the qualifying rounds of the tournament using fair-play guidelines (points are awarded for playing without excessive penalties) and the championship round following regular rules. When the fair-play and regular rules portions of the tournament were compared, the injury rate was 4 times higher during the regular rules portion of the tournament. A doubling of the number of penalties and injury rate during the championship round occurred when fair-play rules were suspended.
CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that a high proportion of youth hockey injuries are attributable to checking and that limiting checking can reduce injuries. Disparities in size and strength can further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions. Variations in size and strength are present in all age groups but are most pronounced among the bantam-level players (ages 14 to 15 years). Therefore, minimizing checking and other high-impact collisions in this age group could further reduce injuries.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Top
In the interest of enhancing safety in youth ice hockey, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the following.
Body checking should not be allowed in youth hockey for children age 15 years or younger.
Good sportsmanship programs, such as the fair-play concept, have been shown to reduce injury and penalty rates and should be adopted for all levels of youth hockey.
Youth hockey programs need to educate players, coaches, and parents about the importance of knowing and following the rules as well as the dangers of body checking another player from behind.
COMMITTEE ON SPORTS MEDICINE & FITNESS, 1999-2000
Steven J. Anderson, MD, Chairperson
Bernard A. Griesemer, MD
Miriam D. Johnson, MD
Thomas J. Martin, MD
Larry G. McLain, MD
Thomas W. Rowland, MD
Eric Small, MD
Head Hits: The NHL is Setting A Precedent so Should USA Hockey.
Head hits are being addressed aggressively by the NHL and NFL. Here is the original link to the article below my 2 cents Paddy Miller.
My focus is to have USA Hockey and youth ice hockey organizations begin to change or continue to change youth ice hockey to better protect the players, our children. I am not saying USA Hockey isn't doing this. And I am not saying they aren't already making changes. I am saying more should be done around head-hits and dangerous hits in youth ice hockey. I believe parents need to get involved. Just because hockey is a physical sport, this idea can't be used to give passive permission for harmful hits.
Strong penalties are needed to prevent players from taking runs at players and hurting our kids. Checking should move a player off a puck, not pound a child into the boards or ice. There is something called self control. The disparity in size between 11 and 16 year olds should not be an advantage or disadvantage to children wanting to play hockey. In is not unusual for an 11 year old to weigh 70 pounds and a player 12 years old soon to turn 13 weigh 130 pounds. This advantage can not be allowed to go UNCHECKED. A good shoulder check is a good play. There is a difference. There is little protection to a 70 pound child getting hit by a 130 pound child. Or for a 75 pound child getting hit in the back by a 75 pound child. Strong penalties, beyond what is being used, will teach kids more quickly to check correctly. Thinking kids know how to check cleanly and regulate themselves is well... a bit naive. Adults need to be fully involved through the youth ice hockey years.
The NFL, the National Hockey League front office is attempting to curb dangerous hits to the head. There have already been a few instances this season in which questionable hits have been called more sternly, and the NHL is attempting to clear up a gray area in terms of open-ice hits.
We will see if both the NHL and NFL are successful in enforcing current defensive mentalities that are costing many players games lost due to head injuries.
The NHL in recent years has taken steps to curb two earlier problems with hard-hitting—charging and checking from behind. When a player leaves his feet to hit somebody or stride forcefully into a check, that is charging.
Most egregious aggressors are penalized with five minutes, a game misconduct, and face suspension. Checking from behind is exactly how it sounds. It still happens to this day but facing a five minute major, players are more mindful when they see opposing jersey numbers facing them.
The most recent example took place in a game on Sunday at Anaheim. Phoenix Coyotes captain Shane Doan, after losing the puck in the offensive zone, hit Ducks forward Dan Sexton in the neutral zone.
Problem being, Sexton did not have the puck for well over two seconds and began skating up the ice, focusing on the play. Doan immediately placed his shoulder into the face of unsuspecting Sexton dropping him to the ice.
The hit was late and dangerous, as Doan went high on the check. He did not lift an elbow, but he did place his shoulder into the chin of Sexton, sending him to the ice. Both attributes of that hit make it worthy for suspension, and the NHL responded suspending Doan for three games.
Hopefully this is a precedent-setting move made by the NHL disciplinary gods, parking a team’s captain for three games for an absolutely unnecessary hit.
In another incident this year, Chicago defenseman Nicklas Hjalmarsson checked Buffalo forward Jason Pominville from behind along the half-wall in the Chicago zone. Pominville was about to receive the puck, when Hjalmarsson drove Pominville’s head into the half-boards, leaving him motionless on the ice. Pominville is still listed as day-to-day with a concussion.
It was an easy five minute major and ejection call for the referees. Hjalmarsson would later be suspended for two games—another easy call, indeed.
However, when you strictly enforce these types of hits to the head, a gray area can appear. Much like appears in the NFL with open-field hits and roughing-the-passer calls. Given the speed of the NHL, referees can be left with difficult decisions on these types of hits.
In a game on Friday night featuring the Pittsburgh Penguins and New York Islanders, Islander forward Blake Comeau streaked across the neutral zone and crossed the blue line, struggling to find the puck in his skates. Penguins defenseman Kris Letang came across from Comeau’s right and finished a strong open-ice hit.
The game referees would assess a five minute major and game misconduct to Letang for favoring a hit to the head of an opponent. Although upon review, the video replay showed otherwise.
Letang kept his shoulder low and struck the chest of Comeau. Comeau’s helmet would fly off during the hit adding some dramatic flair to the play. Comeau would also lay motionless on the ice for a bit of time, perhaps also to add dramatic flair.
The NHL would subsequently rescind the five-minute penalty and ticket to the locker room assessed to Letang. While this may be academic to the game itself, the game misconduct is expunged from Letang’s record if it were to come up in later disciplinary issues.
This gray area could lead to the outcomes of many games being altered during the course of the season due to an automatic five-minute major penalty. The Islanders would score on the ensuing power play, (Comeau would collect an assist on that goal) but the Penguins were able to escape with an overtime victory.
However, it looks as though the NHL is setting a strict precedent. Any hit deemed to be to the head of an opponent will be given a harsh infraction and will be examined for possible fine and suspension.
The NHL will now need to keep its promise if it is to protect players from concussions. Some of the biggest stars in the NHL like to hit in the open-ice, and hit very hard.
One of the biggest stars in the game, Alex Ovechkin plays a very reckless game and has already been suspended by the NHL on a previous occasion. The aforementioned Doan has always been a physical presence, and the most recent suspension levied by the NHL on him was justifiable.
The NHL and NFL will both look to curb these types of violent collisions this season and curb behaviors for the future. Given most recent actions, both entities feel suspending players over fines will send a much clearer message that if you attempt to injure an opponent, you will watching your team from a luxury box the next few games.
Dangerous hits have cost many NHL players countless man-games lost to injury, and the NHL beginning to take a hard-line against these dangerous infractions is a step in the right direction
My focus is to have USA Hockey and youth ice hockey organizations begin to change or continue to change youth ice hockey to better protect the players, our children. I am not saying USA Hockey isn't doing this. And I am not saying they aren't already making changes. I am saying more should be done around head-hits and dangerous hits in youth ice hockey. I believe parents need to get involved. Just because hockey is a physical sport, this idea can't be used to give passive permission for harmful hits.
Strong penalties are needed to prevent players from taking runs at players and hurting our kids. Checking should move a player off a puck, not pound a child into the boards or ice. There is something called self control. The disparity in size between 11 and 16 year olds should not be an advantage or disadvantage to children wanting to play hockey. In is not unusual for an 11 year old to weigh 70 pounds and a player 12 years old soon to turn 13 weigh 130 pounds. This advantage can not be allowed to go UNCHECKED. A good shoulder check is a good play. There is a difference. There is little protection to a 70 pound child getting hit by a 130 pound child. Or for a 75 pound child getting hit in the back by a 75 pound child. Strong penalties, beyond what is being used, will teach kids more quickly to check correctly. Thinking kids know how to check cleanly and regulate themselves is well... a bit naive. Adults need to be fully involved through the youth ice hockey years.
The NFL, the National Hockey League front office is attempting to curb dangerous hits to the head. There have already been a few instances this season in which questionable hits have been called more sternly, and the NHL is attempting to clear up a gray area in terms of open-ice hits.
We will see if both the NHL and NFL are successful in enforcing current defensive mentalities that are costing many players games lost due to head injuries.
The NHL in recent years has taken steps to curb two earlier problems with hard-hitting—charging and checking from behind. When a player leaves his feet to hit somebody or stride forcefully into a check, that is charging.
Most egregious aggressors are penalized with five minutes, a game misconduct, and face suspension. Checking from behind is exactly how it sounds. It still happens to this day but facing a five minute major, players are more mindful when they see opposing jersey numbers facing them.
The most recent example took place in a game on Sunday at Anaheim. Phoenix Coyotes captain Shane Doan, after losing the puck in the offensive zone, hit Ducks forward Dan Sexton in the neutral zone.
Problem being, Sexton did not have the puck for well over two seconds and began skating up the ice, focusing on the play. Doan immediately placed his shoulder into the face of unsuspecting Sexton dropping him to the ice.
The hit was late and dangerous, as Doan went high on the check. He did not lift an elbow, but he did place his shoulder into the chin of Sexton, sending him to the ice. Both attributes of that hit make it worthy for suspension, and the NHL responded suspending Doan for three games.
Hopefully this is a precedent-setting move made by the NHL disciplinary gods, parking a team’s captain for three games for an absolutely unnecessary hit.
In another incident this year, Chicago defenseman Nicklas Hjalmarsson checked Buffalo forward Jason Pominville from behind along the half-wall in the Chicago zone. Pominville was about to receive the puck, when Hjalmarsson drove Pominville’s head into the half-boards, leaving him motionless on the ice. Pominville is still listed as day-to-day with a concussion.
It was an easy five minute major and ejection call for the referees. Hjalmarsson would later be suspended for two games—another easy call, indeed.
However, when you strictly enforce these types of hits to the head, a gray area can appear. Much like appears in the NFL with open-field hits and roughing-the-passer calls. Given the speed of the NHL, referees can be left with difficult decisions on these types of hits.
In a game on Friday night featuring the Pittsburgh Penguins and New York Islanders, Islander forward Blake Comeau streaked across the neutral zone and crossed the blue line, struggling to find the puck in his skates. Penguins defenseman Kris Letang came across from Comeau’s right and finished a strong open-ice hit.
The game referees would assess a five minute major and game misconduct to Letang for favoring a hit to the head of an opponent. Although upon review, the video replay showed otherwise.
Letang kept his shoulder low and struck the chest of Comeau. Comeau’s helmet would fly off during the hit adding some dramatic flair to the play. Comeau would also lay motionless on the ice for a bit of time, perhaps also to add dramatic flair.
The NHL would subsequently rescind the five-minute penalty and ticket to the locker room assessed to Letang. While this may be academic to the game itself, the game misconduct is expunged from Letang’s record if it were to come up in later disciplinary issues.
This gray area could lead to the outcomes of many games being altered during the course of the season due to an automatic five-minute major penalty. The Islanders would score on the ensuing power play, (Comeau would collect an assist on that goal) but the Penguins were able to escape with an overtime victory.
However, it looks as though the NHL is setting a strict precedent. Any hit deemed to be to the head of an opponent will be given a harsh infraction and will be examined for possible fine and suspension.
The NHL will now need to keep its promise if it is to protect players from concussions. Some of the biggest stars in the NHL like to hit in the open-ice, and hit very hard.
One of the biggest stars in the game, Alex Ovechkin plays a very reckless game and has already been suspended by the NHL on a previous occasion. The aforementioned Doan has always been a physical presence, and the most recent suspension levied by the NHL on him was justifiable.
The NHL and NFL will both look to curb these types of violent collisions this season and curb behaviors for the future. Given most recent actions, both entities feel suspending players over fines will send a much clearer message that if you attempt to injure an opponent, you will watching your team from a luxury box the next few games.
Dangerous hits have cost many NHL players countless man-games lost to injury, and the NHL beginning to take a hard-line against these dangerous infractions is a step in the right direction
Monday, October 18, 2010
Opening Afternoon: Huskies Win This Weekend 6-4
The Huskies won their opening league game Saturday 6-4. It was a pleasure to see how the boys developed over pre-season and exciting to see them thoroughly implement a higher level of hockey play during the game. This was a great way to start the season.
A greater statement is to the character of the Huskies both individually and as a team. During Sunday's game that ended in a 3-3 tie, there were just too many unjustified harmful hits by the opposing team. The Huskies kept face and character and never retaliated or attempted to hurt the other players. They kept their composure and tied the game because they played as a team. Smart sharp passing set up two goals for the Huskies. The other team drew 11 penalties to our 1 penalty. We had two kids hurt. Let's hope for a speedy recovery to James and Matt. And to Noah and Tucker. The Huskies are a team and every player is needed for the run to the championship game. (by the way we will be in the championship game)
A greater statement is to the character of the Huskies both individually and as a team. During Sunday's game that ended in a 3-3 tie, there were just too many unjustified harmful hits by the opposing team. The Huskies kept face and character and never retaliated or attempted to hurt the other players. They kept their composure and tied the game because they played as a team. Smart sharp passing set up two goals for the Huskies. The other team drew 11 penalties to our 1 penalty. We had two kids hurt. Let's hope for a speedy recovery to James and Matt. And to Noah and Tucker. The Huskies are a team and every player is needed for the run to the championship game. (by the way we will be in the championship game)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Mental Aspects of Ice Hockey: Parents Attending Practices
I have missed very few ice hockey practices for my son. Why do I attend the practices? Number one: one day he will have "grown up" and I don't want to miss these moments. I enjoy watching him and my daughter. Number two: practices are challenging for children. Each age dictates a different type of practice. At age 12 the practices become more complex. Greater mental demands are placed on the players to think about the game. Thinking can slow a player down. Practicing thinking or decision making/options makes thinking more automatic.
Coaches begin moving away from a lot of visual examples and start relying more on verbal instructions. Many coaches use "chalk-talk" to review the complexities of the game and pre-practice routines. On the practice ice, your child is no longer being asked to just skate and shoot but he or she is also being asked to think. Think. Thinking is no different then learning to skate, pass or shoot. It needs to be practiced just like those physical skills. Imagine what it is like having to skate, control the puck and make decisions while someone can plow you to the ground at any moment. Difficult? Stressful? Of course it is.
Whether or not you make every practice, there is opportunity for you to help your child learn. You can't help teach them the new drills if you don't know what they are practicing. The art of making good decisions on the ice, come game time, comes from practicing them on and off the ice. How can you help? You can spend about 10 minutes a day, 20 at most, drawing up the practice drills and having you child explain to you what his role is and how he should move on the ice. This preparation will allow your child to focus better at practices and it will decrease their anxiety and build their confidence. Practices will start with them understanding what is expected of them. Their focus will be on the coach and on what is being said, not on worrying what the coach means or how the drill is done.
Coaches begin moving away from a lot of visual examples and start relying more on verbal instructions. Many coaches use "chalk-talk" to review the complexities of the game and pre-practice routines. On the practice ice, your child is no longer being asked to just skate and shoot but he or she is also being asked to think. Think. Thinking is no different then learning to skate, pass or shoot. It needs to be practiced just like those physical skills. Imagine what it is like having to skate, control the puck and make decisions while someone can plow you to the ground at any moment. Difficult? Stressful? Of course it is.
Whether or not you make every practice, there is opportunity for you to help your child learn. You can't help teach them the new drills if you don't know what they are practicing. The art of making good decisions on the ice, come game time, comes from practicing them on and off the ice. How can you help? You can spend about 10 minutes a day, 20 at most, drawing up the practice drills and having you child explain to you what his role is and how he should move on the ice. This preparation will allow your child to focus better at practices and it will decrease their anxiety and build their confidence. Practices will start with them understanding what is expected of them. Their focus will be on the coach and on what is being said, not on worrying what the coach means or how the drill is done.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Ovechkin's Penalty Shot 10/9/2010 vs The New Jersey Devils
Penalty shots are rare. Ovechkin is now 2 for 7 in penalty shots.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Huskies Finish Preseason With 2 Wins
The Huskies used their final two games to show off what they have learned in practice. The defense was fully active and controlled both games nicely. The Huskies scored 17 goals and shut out both the Tricity Eagles and Southern Maryland Sabres. They have fully adapted to passing back to the point and have started cycling the puck with some zip. All the offensive lines scored, back-checked and kept pressure on the puck in all zones.
The season starts next week. Let's hope Lizzy stays healthy and Tucker gets on the ice soon.
Here's to a great preseason... Game On!
The season starts next week. Let's hope Lizzy stays healthy and Tucker gets on the ice soon.
Here's to a great preseason... Game On!
Capitals vs Devils 10/9/2010: NJ Can't Play or Fight. Caps Win 2
Ah come on... I get a fight might be needed during a shellacking to keep face. But there is a point when losing with some grace and professionalism, is the answer. NJ is working on a new offensive system this year but it seems it all they have accomplished was to remove the defensive system. Caps win the game and edge the fights. They take 2 from the Devils.
Friday, October 8, 2010
What Can A Lazy Pass Do?: Wonders If Your a Flyers Fan
Claude Giroux restored the Flyers’ two-goal lead at 4:55 by stealing Kris Letang’s lazy pass intended for Paul Martin in the Penguins’ zone and beat Marc-Andre Fleury on a short breakaway. Fleury made 24 saves in his first game since the Penguins’ Stanley Cup championship reign ended with a 5-2 loss in Game 7 to Montreal on May 12.
The above clip taken from A Lazy Pass From Chris Letang
This turned out to be the game winning goal. Pass like you mean it.
The above clip taken from A Lazy Pass From Chris Letang
This turned out to be the game winning goal. Pass like you mean it.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Huskies Lose Two To Grow On: Opportunities
Preseason is winding down and the Huskies have faced most of the teams they will be playing in the CBHL this season. All the games have been tight. Win or lose, the opportunity is there, was there and will be there. Most of the games have been by determined by 1 or 2 goals. What does that mean going into the season? We have a competitive team that needs to win as a team. What does that mean? Individual effort might win a game but team effort wins championships. Just a thought to ponder.
Let me take the time to thank Matt #66 who stepped in as a goalie for the weekend. He did a great job. With zero practice time as goalie, he kept the Huskies in both games. He faced 35-40 shots over the weekend. Stepping up and playing where asked, when asked and without complaint, exemplifies a team player. Great job Matt!
It was clear the boys were passing back to the point more often this weekend. It was clear they had many opportunities in front of the net to score. These opportunities came from hard flat passes or as rebounds. The opportunities are definitely there. Matt #11 and Noah #91 scored during the power play. Those goals were assisted by #38 Thomas, #14 Nick, and #11 Matt. Great use of the power play opportunities! What they have been practicing is showing up in their game.
With one week left in preseason how will the team respond to losses? Will they move closer as a team? Will they realize the pass is mightier then stick handling through 3 players. Will they recognize "hustle" buys them time to move the puck and make decisions? Will they realize quickly getting to their position supports their teammate who has the puck? This is what I like to call the 3 P's of oPPPortunity... pass, pursuit and position.
The answers... yes, yes they have and yes they will continue. It has been showing up in the game. They are already doing it. This season is young. Imagine where they will be come December. Exciting! The opportunity for a great season is here. That is all you can ask for.
Let me take the time to thank Matt #66 who stepped in as a goalie for the weekend. He did a great job. With zero practice time as goalie, he kept the Huskies in both games. He faced 35-40 shots over the weekend. Stepping up and playing where asked, when asked and without complaint, exemplifies a team player. Great job Matt!
It was clear the boys were passing back to the point more often this weekend. It was clear they had many opportunities in front of the net to score. These opportunities came from hard flat passes or as rebounds. The opportunities are definitely there. Matt #11 and Noah #91 scored during the power play. Those goals were assisted by #38 Thomas, #14 Nick, and #11 Matt. Great use of the power play opportunities! What they have been practicing is showing up in their game.
With one week left in preseason how will the team respond to losses? Will they move closer as a team? Will they realize the pass is mightier then stick handling through 3 players. Will they recognize "hustle" buys them time to move the puck and make decisions? Will they realize quickly getting to their position supports their teammate who has the puck? This is what I like to call the 3 P's of oPPPortunity... pass, pursuit and position.
The answers... yes, yes they have and yes they will continue. It has been showing up in the game. They are already doing it. This season is young. Imagine where they will be come December. Exciting! The opportunity for a great season is here. That is all you can ask for.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Mental Aspects of Ice Hockey: What You See, The Coaches See and Your Child Sees
Seeing is not always believing. And more importantly seeing is not always agreeing. Life is a matter of perspective and so is ice hockey. A coach, a parent and hockey player walk into a ba... No. No. A coach, a parent and a hockey player (your kid) are all seeing the same event differently. This is important because your child may believe they are moving quickly down the ice. They may believe they are chasing the puck into the corner. They may believe they are in position. They may believe the only option they had was to skate through 4 players. They may believe their elbow was their shoulder on the check they got a penalty on.
Sometimes we want to talk to our child about their performance in a game or at practice. The first barrier is recognizing they may see the event the same way you did or they may NOT. When this happens, it pretty much has the opposite effect then you intended. Your child may argue or feel you are just critical because that is not the way it happened (in their mind).
The best way to approach your child is to first ask them how they saw it or what they noticed. Explaining to them that you want to talk about it because you saw it differently or noticed something different, is probably the best way to start the conversation. All conversations do not have to go this way. Using this method, each side gives their perspective. It is a neutral way to start. As a parent you are still moving toward helping your child but you are NOT starting off by telling them how it is. A difference that matters even more, when addressing issues they are resistant too.
Video is a great equalizer. Most of the time your child doesn't know they have room for improvement. What they are perceiving and believing in their mind is often different then actual performance. Video is a great tool. Don't use it to point out what they are doing wrong. Use it to ask them what they notice and what they can do to improve just a little bit. They typically know how to improve and they can tell you what they need. They just have to agree there is room for improvement. Once they see themselves or agree they can improve a part of their play, it doesn't take long for a change to occur in their game. In short, once they are aware... they can change the behavior. They aren't always aware. And to be fair either are we. Check yourself before you check them. You are bigger and what you say hurts more. No pun intended.
Sometimes we want to talk to our child about their performance in a game or at practice. The first barrier is recognizing they may see the event the same way you did or they may NOT. When this happens, it pretty much has the opposite effect then you intended. Your child may argue or feel you are just critical because that is not the way it happened (in their mind).
The best way to approach your child is to first ask them how they saw it or what they noticed. Explaining to them that you want to talk about it because you saw it differently or noticed something different, is probably the best way to start the conversation. All conversations do not have to go this way. Using this method, each side gives their perspective. It is a neutral way to start. As a parent you are still moving toward helping your child but you are NOT starting off by telling them how it is. A difference that matters even more, when addressing issues they are resistant too.
Video is a great equalizer. Most of the time your child doesn't know they have room for improvement. What they are perceiving and believing in their mind is often different then actual performance. Video is a great tool. Don't use it to point out what they are doing wrong. Use it to ask them what they notice and what they can do to improve just a little bit. They typically know how to improve and they can tell you what they need. They just have to agree there is room for improvement. Once they see themselves or agree they can improve a part of their play, it doesn't take long for a change to occur in their game. In short, once they are aware... they can change the behavior. They aren't always aware. And to be fair either are we. Check yourself before you check them. You are bigger and what you say hurts more. No pun intended.
Ice Hockey: The High Umbrella Power-Play
Overhead video of a team using the High Umbrella on the power-play. A good way for a player to visually see how it looks on ice.
Detailed computer display of a modified High Umbrella. Lots of details for getting a player to start thinking.
Detailed computer display of a modified High Umbrella. Lots of details for getting a player to start thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)