Calhockey.com
Hockey Discussions => Bantam Hockey => Topic started by: TheFourthA on December 17, 2019, 06:00:30 AM
-
This season USA hockey and CAHA were supposed to be enforcing new checking standards. At risk of over simplification, checking was to be done only for purpose of separating a player and puck, with stick down, and only with trunk and torso. Finishing the check was banned and instead the checking player is required to avoid or minimize contact after the other player no longer has possession of the puck.
Does anyone see these rules being enforced? I have seen arguably one instance of it all season. What’s worse, I don’t see much attempt to enforce basic pre existing rules against boarding, checking from behind Etc, even when players are hurt Plays that by the old rule book should be majors and a game misconduct are not being called as even a minor penalty. It seems to be getting worse as some players test the boundaries. I don’t see corrections by most coaches, either.
Maybe no one else sees a problem? I’ve seen 4 players hurt in the past two games with no calls. But it seems to me that there should be some sort of orientation where all players, coaches and refs have to watch the USA Hockey video on checking and perhaps supplemental video review when players are hurt. Thoughts?
-
Where to begin...
I heard this cringe-worthy comment from a parent last weekend, "HIT HIM! Play the body! When will they ever learn, you take the body out and the player can't play the puck!" :o :'( ::) :-X (Well, neither can your kid then, genius.)
The art of the check has evolved and coaches, refs, and parents alike are behind the curve. CAHA posted an article "Changing the Culture of Body Checking" back in September and I doubt anyone watched it. Here is the link [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A)[/size]
The clip from 12:05-12:30 says it all. This garbage is what players (and parents) still think is a good hit usually under the delusion that it is only a penalty because of head contact, but otherwise would be fine if the player didn't fall at the last second. The reality is that the checking player never plays the puck, never attempts to gain possession of the puck, and pretty much is only interested in "finishing his check." This play was avoidable.
Another great clip is at 10:20. I see this being the only check on the ice these days and by far the most popular. Yet, never gets called. Players with their STICK IN THE AIR completely ignoring the puck and delivering hits after the puck is gone. (Not long gone either, and it doesn't matter.) Again, they think it is all about a good solid "finish the check," but that no longer exists in current hockey culture. Sorry, it is true. I see this hit 10+ times a game and it only ever gets called a penalty when the player raises and extends his arms through the check. A lazy call IMO. Same hit at 9:35... stick in the air, late, avoidable, unacceptable, yet it happens repeatedly with no penalty. That's not hockey anymore and people, parents, players need to learn.
In your player's next game, count the checks with stick in the air and/or arms extended. Then compare that to
the number of checks where the stick is on the ice and playing the puck before the check is delivered. I guarantee you get a 10:1 ratio stick in the air:stick on ice/puck. If you watch the whole video you hear the phrase "makes no attempt at the puck," or "no possession of the puck," over and over again. This concept is the current culture shift.
The expectation from USA hockey has changed, but there is serious lag on the trickle-down awareness today. The slide at 3:12 says it all "Primary focus of a body check is to gain possession of the puck... proper technique starts with STICK ON PUCK..."
-
Where to begin...
I heard this cringe-worthy comment from a parent last weekend, "HIT HIM! Play the body! When will they ever learn, you take the body out and the player can't play the puck!" :o :'( ::) :-X (Well, neither can your kid then, genius.)
The art of the check has evolved and coaches, refs, and parents alike are behind the curve. CAHA posted an article "Changing the Culture of Body Checking" back in September and I doubt anyone watched it. Here is the link [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A)[/size]
The clip from 12:05-12:30 says it all. This garbage is what players (and parents) still think is a good hit usually under the delusion that it is only a penalty because of head contact, but otherwise would be fine if the player didn't fall at the last second. The reality is that the checking player never plays the puck, never attempts to gain possession of the puck, and pretty much is only interested in "finishing his check." This play was avoidable.
Another great clip is at 10:20. I see this being the only check on the ice these days and by far the most popular. Yet, never gets called. Players with their STICK IN THE AIR completely ignoring the puck and delivering hits after the puck is gone. (Not long gone either, and it doesn't matter.) Again, they think it is all about a good solid "finish the check," but that no longer exists in current hockey culture. Sorry, it is true. I see this hit 10+ times a game and it only ever gets called a penalty when the player raises and extends his arms through the check. A lazy call IMO. Same hit at 9:35... stick in the air, late, avoidable, unacceptable, yet it happens repeatedly with no penalty. That's not hockey anymore and people, parents, players need to learn.
In your player's next game, count the checks with stick in the air and/or arms extended. Then compare that to
the number of checks where the stick is on the ice and playing the puck before the check is delivered. I guarantee you get a 10:1 ratio stick in the air:stick on ice/puck. If you watch the whole video you hear the phrase "makes no attempt at the puck," or "no possession of the puck," over and over again. This concept is the current culture shift.
The expectation from USA hockey has changed, but there is serious lag on the trickle-down awareness today. The slide at 3:12 says it all "Primary focus of a body check is to gain possession of the puck... proper technique starts with STICK ON PUCK..."
Sounds like a post of a parent of a lil Gretzky that doesn't like to get hit. This is hockey. Even though no one wants any kid to get hurt, its part of the game......there's always AYSO
-
Where to begin...
I heard this cringe-worthy comment from a parent last weekend, "HIT HIM! Play the body! When will they ever learn, you take the body out and the player can't play the puck!" :o :'( ::) :-X (Well, neither can your kid then, genius.)
The art of the check has evolved and coaches, refs, and parents alike are behind the curve. CAHA posted an article "Changing the Culture of Body Checking" back in September and I doubt anyone watched it. Here is the link [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXidYlZRX3A)[/size]
The clip from 12:05-12:30 says it all. This garbage is what players (and parents) still think is a good hit usually under the delusion that it is only a penalty because of head contact, but otherwise would be fine if the player didn't fall at the last second. The reality is that the checking player never plays the puck, never attempts to gain possession of the puck, and pretty much is only interested in "finishing his check." This play was avoidable.
Another great clip is at 10:20. I see this being the only check on the ice these days and by far the most popular. Yet, never gets called. Players with their STICK IN THE AIR completely ignoring the puck and delivering hits after the puck is gone. (Not long gone either, and it doesn't matter.) Again, they think it is all about a good solid "finish the check," but that no longer exists in current hockey culture. Sorry, it is true. I see this hit 10+ times a game and it only ever gets called a penalty when the player raises and extends his arms through the check. A lazy call IMO. Same hit at 9:35... stick in the air, late, avoidable, unacceptable, yet it happens repeatedly with no penalty. That's not hockey anymore and people, parents, players need to learn.
In your player's next game, count the checks with stick in the air and/or arms extended. Then compare that to
the number of checks where the stick is on the ice and playing the puck before the check is delivered. I guarantee you get a 10:1 ratio stick in the air:stick on ice/puck. If you watch the whole video you hear the phrase "makes no attempt at the puck," or "no possession of the puck," over and over again. This concept is the current culture shift.
The expectation from USA hockey has changed, but there is serious lag on the trickle-down awareness today. The slide at 3:12 says it all "Primary focus of a body check is to gain possession of the puck... proper technique starts with STICK ON PUCK..."
Sounds like a post of a parent of a lil Gretzky that doesn't like to get hit. This is hockey. Even though no one wants any kid to get hurt, its part of the game......there's always AYSO
couldn't agree more....I say this as the parent of two different types of hockey players, one tolerates the contact and the other one loves the contact. A parent of a kid who left for juniors back east told me just recently....So Cal hockey does not prepare our kids for the contact they get in juniors. So basically get used to it or have your kids play non contact. And BOS sure has a lot to say for guy whos kid plays non check pw
-
A primary characteristic for argumentative fallacy is personal attacks. It's the main strategy of most politicians. Also, the lack of fact-checking which is true in your post as well.
Another flaw is over generalization used as fact. Referencing the opinion of one parent for one player to include the entire state of CA hockey fits this fallacy.
-
Not a little Gretzky parent at all. And none of the hits I am concerned with are on head down dangles. In fact, in the four that I refer to, the player hit didn’t have the puck. In three of them, the player was hit into the boards from behind, where the back and name were squared directly up to the checking player. Now, I will fully confess I never played the game, but I don’t see these as unwritten rules or grey areas, but sound off if I am wrong. Not talking about the cross checks from defensemen clearing the area in front of the crease or because someone scored and therefore has to be cross checked after the goal. I don’t know how the players could have protected themselves.
-
USA Hockey is trying to reset the way checking is done. The rest of the world is not... Even in you play back east or up north you will see the difference in California Hockey and they way it is everywhere else.
In my opinion a few (very few) of the things outlined in that video are good to remove but, this is largely just the continued pussification of sports and our general society.
-
Not a little Gretzky parent at all. And none of the hits I am concerned with are on head down dangles. In fact, in the four that I refer to, the player hit didn’t have the puck. In three of them, the player was hit into the boards from behind, where the back and name were squared directly up to the checking player. Now, I will fully confess I never played the game, but I don’t see these as unwritten rules or grey areas, but sound off if I am wrong. Not talking about the cross checks from defensemen clearing the area in front of the crease or because someone scored and therefore has to be cross checked after the goal. I don’t know how the players could have protected themselves.
Well, according to those missing out on the culture shift, those players you watched should have been tougher, should learn to deal with it as part of the game, and are responsible for putting themselves in such bad positions.
-
A primary characteristic for argumentative fallacy is personal attacks. It's the main strategy of most politicians. Also, the lack of fact-checking which is true in your post as well.
Another flaw is over generalization used as fact. Referencing the opinion of one parent for one player to include the entire state of CA hockey fits this fallacy.
sooo your kid(s) play checking hockey? that is the fact im trying to check... If they dont, then how the hell are you commenting on this topic of checking in youth hockey with the impression that you know something about it other than watching a checking game while your kid is in warmups. otherwise listen and learn from the parents who have been there and done that.
Oh and yeah this is youth hockey board not a ivy league debate board, so use language a construction worker can understand and we can keep this going.
-
A primary characteristic for argumentative fallacy is personal attacks. It's the main strategy of most politicians. Also, the lack of fact-checking which is true in your post as well.
Another flaw is over generalization used as fact. Referencing the opinion of one parent for one player to include the entire state of CA hockey fits this fallacy.
sooo your kid(s) play checking hockey? that is the fact im trying to check... If they dont, then how the hell are you commenting on this topic of checking in youth hockey with the impression that you know something about it other than watching a checking game while your kid is in warmups. otherwise listen and learn from the parents who have been there and done that.
Oh and yeah this is youth hockey board not a ivy league debate board, so use language a construction worker can understand and we can keep this going.
Yes, I have a kid who has been checking for a few years now. More like getting hit, but he bounces back. I am not saying I see goons out there. Quite the opposite this year. (Last year was brutal.) This year, it is more about learning a better way to check. once in a while a kid takes it too far, but for the most part, I give full permission to hit a kid as hard as you can if you play with the stick down and play it through the puck. That's not happening. The games I see, (Bantam and Midget) most kids are throwing checks only to create body contact. Make plays on the puck and that kid will be seen as a better, more skilled player. A checker can destroy a kid if its all about playing the puck. Now we are talking about technique and decision making. AKA quality hockey.
-
I don’t see anyone (yet) saying they see any noticeable difference in how games are being officiated, notwithstanding the new rules. I sure don’t. But let me back track for a second: when is it ever acceptable to check from behind or board? I mean that in terms of what is the practical rule is being enforced?
-
USA Hockey is trying to reset the way checking is done. The rest of the world is not... Even in you play back east or up north you will see the difference in California Hockey and they way it is everywhere else.
In my opinion a few (very few) of the things outlined in that video are good to remove but, this is largely just the continued pussification of sports and our general society.
Everyone has a difference in opinion of whether the game is getting softer or not, but in the end most of us want our players to end up with a skill set that will be desired by college coaches both d1 and d3 and from what I have seen at those levels, is they are all about skating, skill, puck control, and controlled body contact for recovering and retrieving the puck. If we want our little gretzky playing at those levels then we should be steering them towards those skill sets and not our own personal beliefs and desires, otherwise aren't we just setting them up for failure and frustration?
-
USA Hockey is trying to reset the way checking is done. The rest of the world is not... Even in you play back east or up north you will see the difference in California Hockey and they way it is everywhere else.
In my opinion a few (very few) of the things outlined in that video are good to remove but, this is largely just the continued pussification of sports and our general society.
Everyone has a difference in opinion of whether the game is getting softer or not, but in the end most of us want our players to end up with a skill set that will be desired by college coaches both d1 and d3 and from what I have seen at those levels, is they are all about skating, skill, puck control, and controlled body contact for recovering and retrieving the puck. If we want our little gretzky playing at those levels then we should be steering them towards those skill sets and not our own personal beliefs and desires, otherwise aren't we just setting them up for failure and frustration?
Problem is what USA Hockey is trying to sell is not what Junior coaches are looking for. Forget about D1 and D3 coaches for now because they have to play Juniors first. However, D1 and D3 coaches are the the same as Junior coaches. You have to understand that the "new rules" do not apply. If your player does not hit an hit hard they will not go far in hockey, period. The problem is most players do not understand the difference between hitting in control and hitting. The purpose of hitting is and has always been to separate the player from the puck.
Junior coaches will not even give your player a second look if he is not big, a great skater and not afraid to hit.
-
A primary characteristic for argumentative fallacy is personal attacks. It's the main strategy of most politicians. Also, the lack of fact-checking which is true in your post as well.
Another flaw is over generalization used as fact. Referencing the opinion of one parent for one player to include the entire state of CA hockey fits this fallacy.
sooo your kid(s) play checking hockey? that is the fact im trying to check... If they dont, then how the hell are you commenting on this topic of checking in youth hockey with the impression that you know something about it other than watching a checking game while your kid is in warmups. otherwise listen and learn from the parents who have been there and done that.
Oh and yeah this is youth hockey board not a ivy league debate board, so use language a construction worker can understand and we can keep this going.
Yes, I have a kid who has been checking for a few years now. More like getting hit, but he bounces back. I am not saying I see goons out there. Quite the opposite this year. (Last year was brutal.) This year, it is more about learning a better way to check. once in a while a kid takes it too far, but for the most part, I give full permission to hit a kid as hard as you can if you play with the stick down and play it through the puck. That's not happening. The games I see, (Bantam and Midget) most kids are throwing checks only to create body contact. Make plays on the puck and that kid will be seen as a better, more skilled player. A checker can destroy a kid if its all about playing the puck. Now we are talking about technique and decision making. AKA quality hockey.
I agree with you that a lot of kids check just to check, but sometimes a fear of a hitter can create a mistake via rushed pass or dump.
-
USA Hockey is trying to reset the way checking is done. The rest of the world is not... Even in you play back east or up north you will see the difference in California Hockey and they way it is everywhere else.
In my opinion a few (very few) of the things outlined in that video are good to remove but, this is largely just the continued pussification of sports and our general society.
Everyone has a difference in opinion of whether the game is getting softer or not, but in the end most of us want our players to end up with a skill set that will be desired by college coaches both d1 and d3 and from what I have seen at those levels, is they are all about skating, skill, puck control, and controlled body contact for recovering and retrieving the puck. If we want our little gretzky playing at those levels then we should be steering them towards those skill sets and not our own personal beliefs and desires, otherwise aren't we just setting them up for failure and frustration?
Problem is what USA Hockey is trying to sell is not what Junior coaches are looking for. Forget about D1 and D3 coaches for now because they have to play Juniors first. However, D1 and D3 coaches are the the same as Junior coaches. You have to understand that the "new rules" do not apply. If your player does not hit an hit hard they will not go far in hockey, period. The problem is most players do not understand the difference between hitting in control and hitting. The purpose of hitting is and has always been to separate the player from the puck.
Junior coaches will not even give your player a second look if he is not big, a great skater and not afraid to hit.
This is what a friend told me his kid is experiencing back east in the USPHL. Very physical
-
Does anyone see these rules being enforced? Maybe no one else sees a problem? I’ve seen 4 players hurt in the past two games with no calls. But it seems to me that there should be some sort of orientation where all players, coaches and refs have to watch the USA Hockey video on checking and perhaps supplemental video review when players are hurt. Thoughts?
Haven't seen a change at Bantam or Midget. Officiating in CAHA is as bad as its always been.
However, at HS I've seen a difference. About 75% of the games ARE being called with the new rules and refs are doing a good job and being consistent across both teams. The first month or so the players were super confused at being called for finishing checks or just playing the body. But seems that the players and coaches are slowly adjusting. Refs at HS are also calling misconducts for head contact.
Hockey Canada started this approach last year, it took some time to adjust, but in the end they have the data on reduction of concussions and injuries and have doubled down on it. USA Hockey is just following the data, and, like ADM, it will take time for all of the country to adapt.
The game continues to evolve for the better. Goon hockey is a thing of the past. Your lil' gretzkies have to actually play hockey now.
-
Whoever said “pussification†said it best. Using Canada as an example for these new rules is laughable too. So far this year I have heard from Canadian teams that they are not allowed to jump over the boards because someone might get hurt and coaches are not allowed to shake players hands at the end of the game because someone might say something and get hurt feelings. We are growing an entire generation of kids that are soft and sensitive. It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions. My kids will still lay your little wimp out when they have their head down. Go play in-house non-check if you can’t take it.
-
USA Hockey is trying to reset the way checking is done. The rest of the world is not... Even in you play back east or up north you will see the difference in California Hockey and they way it is everywhere else.
In my opinion a few (very few) of the things outlined in that video are good to remove but, this is largely just the continued pussification of sports and our general society.
Everyone has a difference in opinion of whether the game is getting softer or not, but in the end most of us want our players to end up with a skill set that will be desired by college coaches both d1 and d3 and from what I have seen at those levels, is they are all about skating, skill, puck control, and controlled body contact for recovering and retrieving the puck. If we want our little gretzky playing at those levels then we should be steering them towards those skill sets and not our own personal beliefs and desires, otherwise aren't we just setting them up for failure and frustration?
Problem is what USA Hockey is trying to sell is not what Junior coaches are looking for. Forget about D1 and D3 coaches for now because they have to play Juniors first. However, D1 and D3 coaches are the the same as Junior coaches. You have to understand that the "new rules" do not apply. If your player does not hit an hit hard they will not go far in hockey, period. The problem is most players do not understand the difference between hitting in control and hitting. The purpose of hitting is and has always been to separate the player from the puck.
Junior coaches will not even give your player a second look if he is not big, a great skater and not afraid to hit.
This is what a friend told me his kid is experiencing back east in the USPHL. Very physical
I don’t see the inconsistency here. Yes hockey is way more physical back east and in Canada than it is in California. We are not doing our little gretzkies any favors by “pussifying†the game here (and handing out penalties just because they lay hard hits, which I see far too much in California). But I also see less “goon†hockey out east than I see here — less hitting just for the sake of hitting, and much better enforcement of the actual rules on checking. The best players use checking as a technique and not as an end in itself which is what USA Hockey is trying to encourage and codify as I understand it. That doesn’t mean they don’t play physical, it just means they play smart and physical.
-
It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions.
Read this and you will have a pretty good idea...
https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_ (https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_)
-
It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions.
Read this and you will have a pretty good idea...
https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_ (https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_)
Sad and true.
-
It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions.
Read this and you will have a pretty good idea...
https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_ (https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_)
The hypocrisy of posting this paper to justify youth hockey's "pussification" (as so eloquently put earlier) in CA is reflected in the notion that "...the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good," (Janosik). I submit youth hockey parents exulting their "little Gretzkys" by chasing another letter (A, AA, AAA), skipping from club to club, and complaining that nothing here is ever good enough epitomizes the selfish, self-serving gratification of which this article condemns. Very few hockey families are in it for the group or community or the TEAM (especially at the higher levels).
In the very least, you do realize that this "woke" generation will never serve in any military branch. You should ask yourselves which sub-group/demographic mostly makes-up the military population. Let me answer that for you.
It's 83% - from mid-to-low income neighborhood affluence (earn $80,000 or less)
Those earning more, while not in the military, their kids are probably selfishly playing hockey and never dream of serving in the military. So, we will still be the big, bad, military force for many generations to come. Your land is safe and our hockey players are "woke."
-
It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions.
Read this and you will have a pretty good idea...
https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_ (https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_)
The hypocrisy of posting this paper to justify youth hockey's "pussification" (as so eloquently put earlier) in CA is reflected in the notion that "...the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good," (Janosik). I submit youth hockey parents exulting their "little Gretzkys" by chasing another letter (A, AA, AAA), skipping from club to club, and complaining that nothing here is ever good enough epitomizes the selfish, self-serving gratification of which this article condemns. Very few hockey families are in it for the group or community or the TEAM (especially at the higher levels).
In the very least, you do realize that this "woke" generation will never serve in any military branch. You should ask yourselves which sub-group/demographic mostly makes-up the military population. Let me answer that for you.
It's 83% - from mid-to-low income neighborhood affluence (earn $80,000 or less)
Those earning more, while not in the military, their kids are probably selfishly playing hockey and never dream of serving in the military. So, we will still be the big, bad, military force for many generations to come. Your land is safe and our hockey players are "woke."
You deffinaly sound like a PW parent. Keep taking your blue pills and breath a little and enjoy the continued pussificaton of society.
-
It is going to be interesting to see what our military is like in 10 years with all the little “woke†kids growing up and filling these positions.
Read this and you will have a pretty good idea...
https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_ (https://www.academia.edu/19641146/The_Fate_of_Culture_in_J.D._Unwins_Sex_and_Culture_or_The_Last_American_Generation_)
The hypocrisy of posting this paper to justify youth hockey's "pussification" (as so eloquently put earlier) in CA is reflected in the notion that "...the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good," (Janosik). I submit youth hockey parents exulting their "little Gretzkys" by chasing another letter (A, AA, AAA), skipping from club to club, and complaining that nothing here is ever good enough epitomizes the selfish, self-serving gratification of which this article condemns. Very few hockey families are in it for the group or community or the TEAM (especially at the higher levels).
In the very least, you do realize that this "woke" generation will never serve in any military branch. You should ask yourselves which sub-group/demographic mostly makes-up the military population. Let me answer that for you.
It's 83% - from mid-to-low income neighborhood affluence (earn $80,000 or less)
Those earning more, while not in the military, their kids are probably selfishly playing hockey and never dream of serving in the military. So, we will still be the big, bad, military force for many generations to come. Your land is safe and our hockey players are "woke."
Haha Bladesofsteel. I will see you at the next Berkeley booster club meeting. You will be the lady with the beard I presume.
-
Haha Bladesofsteel. I will see you at the next Berkeley booster club meeting. You will be the lady with the beard I presume.
I'll be at the table with Caitlyn Jenner, Taylor Swift, and Dave Chappelle.
-
Haha Bladesofsteel. I will see you at the next Berkeley booster club meeting. You will be the lady with the beard I presume.
I'll be at the table with Caitlyn Jenner, Taylor Swift, and Dave Chappelle.
;D ;D ;D 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
-
Sounds like a post of a parent of a lil Gretzky that doesn't like to get hit. This is hockey. Even though no one wants any kid to get hurt, its part of the game......there's always AYSO
Maybe your kid didn't like to get hit and that's why he quit hockey...
-
Any more unnecessary checking injuries to report from the big Valencia weekend?
-
There is a lot to say about the quality of referees in CAHA. To say that in general they are not competent would be an insult to incompetent referees. I can now count 6 times this season where a player on our team was given a 2 and 10 for "head contact" that were clean legal checks on a player with the puck. There were 3 more where some head contact occurred, although none of these were intentional targeting of the head.
I've reviewed video on these as well, just to double check. Usually it's a call where one player was taller or larger than the one being hit, but I've also seen examples where it was a 100% legitimate clean check on a player along the board, even shoulder to shoulder. If there's a "boom" against the boards, a lot of these refs are calling a penalty.
Hits from behind are certainly being penalized with boarding or roughing calls, and should there be the perception of injury, I've seen calls that came minutes later after the kid was attended to, when initially the ref didn't make a call on the play. At least at the Bantam level, there are a lot of penalties being called for checking that would not be called in other locales.
I've not seen much NHL style check finishing, and certainly haven't seen a single incident where a kid was head hunting or checking a player who had passed the puck away seconds before getting blindsided. I have no problem with standards and rules that penalize players who are running around trying to drill opponents with no other objective, but from what I've seen this season, penalties on otherwise clean checks on a player with the puck have been occurring with great frequency.
There was a somewhat notorious Bantam player last year, who had a well deserved reputation for taking a predatory approach to checking. That player was suspended multiple times and missed most of the season.
I have a friend who has a kid playing midget AAA who has been penalized and threatened with suspension. As the team has video of all the games, he was able to get officials from USA hockey to review the videos, and was assured that not only were the plays not fit for suspension, but in fact by the standards and rules of USA hockey, 100% clean checks that should not have been penalized in the 1st place.
California hockey since Squirt has standards for body contact and checking that are far more protectionist than more established hockey communities. You find this out pretty quick when you go play tournaments elsewhere.
-
There is a lot to say about the quality of referees in CAHA. To say that in general they are not competent would be an insult to incompetent referees. I can now count 6 times this season where a player on our team was given a 2 and 10 for "head contact" that were clean legal checks on a player with the puck. There were 3 more where some head contact occurred, although none of these were intentional targeting of the head.
I've reviewed video on these as well, just to double check. Usually it's a call where one player was taller or larger than the one being hit, but I've also seen examples where it was a 100% legitimate clean check on a player along the board, even shoulder to shoulder. If there's a "boom" against the boards, a lot of these refs are calling a penalty.
Hits from behind are certainly being penalized with boarding or roughing calls, and should there be the perception of injury, I've seen calls that came minutes later after the kid was attended to, when initially the ref didn't make a call on the play. At least at the Bantam level, there are a lot of penalties being called for checking that would not be called in other locales.
I've not seen much NHL style check finishing, and certainly haven't seen a single incident where a kid was head hunting or checking a player who had passed the puck away seconds before getting blindsided. I have no problem with standards and rules that penalize players who are running around trying to drill opponents with no other objective, but from what I've seen this season, penalties on otherwise clean checks on a player with the puck have been occurring with great frequency.
There was a somewhat notorious Bantam player last year, who had a well deserved reputation for taking a predatory approach to checking. That player was suspended multiple times and missed most of the season.
I have a friend who has a kid playing midget AAA who has been penalized and threatened with suspension. As the team has video of all the games, he was able to get officials from USA hockey to review the videos, and was assured that not only were the plays not fit for suspension, but in fact by the standards and rules of USA hockey, 100% clean checks that should not have been penalized in the 1st place.
California hockey since Squirt has standards for body contact and checking that are far more protectionist than more established hockey communities. You find this out pretty quick when you go play tournaments elsewhere.
The way I read it, there's a lot of judgement in the USA hockey rules to call boarding. Just because a body check "legal" (shoulder to shoulder, not from behind, etc) doesn't mean it can't be called boarding. Not saying the referees judgement is right, just that the excessive sound/result of the check might have drawn the call:
Rule 603 | Boarding(Note) Boarding is the action where a player pushes, trips or body checks an opponent causing them to go dangerously into the boards. This includes: Accelerating through the check to a player who is in a vulnerable position, driving an opponent excessively into the boards with no focus on or intent to play the puck, or any check delivered for the purpose of punishment or intimidation that causes the opponent to go unnecessarily and excessively into the boards.The onus is on the player delivering the check to avoid placing a vulnerable or defenseless opponent in danger.(a) A minor plus a misconduct or major plus game misconduct penalty shall be assessed for boarding an opponent.“Rolling†an opponent along the boards where he is attempting to go through too small an opening is not considered boarding.(b) A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of boarding.(c) A match penalty for attempt to injure or deliberate injury to an opponent may also be assessed for boarding.
-
Refs fk that rule up constantly and players "intent" is always a judgment call.
Players typically do not accelerate, but they ALWAYS "drive excessively with no intent to play the puck" on 99 out of 100 body checks. (Yet you all condone this effort and believe it is good hockey seen at higher levels back East).
The refs screw this rule up by assuming EVERY injury equals a game misconduct. If a player makes a clean body check, but a player gets injured - it is NOT a game misconduct. Only if it was originally a BOARDING call in the first place does the checking player then become susceptible to a game if a player is injured. On top of that, I have seen players receive a GAME FOR THIS RULE AND THE "INJURED" PLAYER RE-ENTERS LATER IN THE GAME!!! WHAT?!?!
This "injury" rule is a HUGE problem and the refs do not understand anything about how to call it.
FIRST, determine were you going to call a Boarding Penalty?
No - then you cannot make-up a game misconduct AFTER you see an injured player.
Yes - then you must make sure the injured player leaves the ice and does not return. At that time, feel free to issue the Game Misconduct on top of the boarding.
Again, if that is the USA Hockey rule, maybe the pussification of CA hockey actually parallels its leadership in social issues and other groundbreaking shifts in society. Better yet, we should become our own country. Team CA would win the 2026 Olympics!
-
State emblem.....the chonch.
Look it up
-
"Players typically do not accelerate, but they ALWAYS "drive excessively with no intent to play the puck" on 99 out of 100 body checks. (Yet you all condone this effort and believe it is good hockey seen at higher levels back East)."
Not an accurate reflection of what I see "back East." I see more calls back East on players who hit with no intent to play the puck than I do here (and maybe as a result I see less gong-show hockey back East). But I also see a lot less calls back East on players who deliver clean, hard hits (as a result of which the game is way tougher physically than here). IMHO the real problem is that we don't do a good job in CA of teaching our kids that hard hitting is a legit tool in their arsenal, and what the right and wrong ways of doing it are. The refs are largely to blame for that because most of them have never played at a high level themselves.
-
State emblem.....the chonch.
Look it up
Pre-game meal? :o
-
"Players typically do not accelerate, but they ALWAYS "drive excessively with no intent to play the puck" on 99 out of 100 body checks. (Yet you all condone this effort and believe it is good hockey seen at higher levels back East)."
Not an accurate reflection of what I see "back East." I see more calls back East on players who hit with no intent to play the puck than I do here (and maybe as a result I see less gong-show hockey back East). But I also see a lot less calls back East on players who deliver clean, hard hits (as a result of which the game is way tougher physically than here). IMHO the real problem is that we don't do a good job in CA of teaching our kids that hard hitting is a legit tool in their arsenal, and what the right and wrong ways of doing it are. The refs are largely to blame for that because most of them have never played at a high level themselves.
Most of the refs here have never played any level of hockey. Most of them can not skate adequately to keep up with the level of hockey they are trying to ref. It's not their fault that this is the situation, but what has SCAHA or CAHA done to try and entice experienced hockey players to become referees? There is no tradition for it here, so I understand the problem, but SCAHA and CAHA are in complete denial that there is a problem with the reffing. Year after year when they ask the coaches at the USA Hockey level 4 training, what's one of the biggest issues, someone says: "The quality of referees is horrible" and everyone cheers, and then they go on and pretend the comment was never made. They are focused on creating new referees with really no standards whatsoever.
We had a hockey parent reffing PWAA games a few seasons back. The guy was relatively old when he took this up, had no hockey background, was probably in his 50's and not in good shape. I'll be the first to tell you that reffing hockey is not easy. First there's an entire rule book to read and absorb and understand. In games, you have to skate a lot both forwards and backwards to do it well, and it's dangerous with pucks flying around. And then you are going to get yelled at and booed and it's in general a thankless job even if you do it well. It's not much money either, when you factor in travel expenses and time spent.
But that doesn't excuse the systematic lack of standards or evaluation, nor does it excuse a system that puts someone who can barely skate, and never played any level of organized Ice hockey, on the ice with Peewee+ Tier hockey games within 1 season. We've all seen these refs on the ice at CAHA weekends and tournaments, so I know you have seen them too. Some of the calls being made don't even exist in the rulebook :o One thing they could do easily enough is to have 2 refs, as they do in the High school leagues. It won't turn bad refs into competent ones, but at least you improve your chances that one of the two might be ok.