Enforcement of checking rules

[TheFourthA]

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?

[BladesofSteel66]

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!"       (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[/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..."

[trans4761]

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!"       (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[/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

[Maverick]

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!"       (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[/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

[BladesofSteel66]

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. 

[TheFourthA]

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.

[SkatingDad]

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.

[BladesofSteel66]

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.   

[Maverick]

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.

[BladesofSteel66]

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.   

[TheFourthA]

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?

[WTF]

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?

[SkatingDad]

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.

[Maverick]

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. 

[Maverick]

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