D6

[frederick61]

Most smaller kids, when being checked, duck their head. A bigger kid has no chance no matter how they are coached to avoid the penalty if the ref follows some standards. I have seen many peewee teams with larger players destroyed by refs calling penalties against smaller teams being coached to take the penalty-a lot of them in D6 especially at the B levels. Fortunately there are quality refs at the D6 A level in peewee that factor judgment and not solely rely on standards.

frederick61,

Players are coach-able no matter how big or small they are. To say that you cannot coach and teach a big kid how and more importantly when to check a smaller player is an excuse. The proper use of a check is to separate a player from the puck or play, not to punish them. Players are taught to Read and React, if they are not being taught this fundamental then the coaches need to re-evaluate the practice plans. If a smaller kid is ducking away from the check, is there really a need to finish that check? It’s all about time and space. A player that is focused on avoiding a freight train and has turned his attention away from the play has been removed from the play. The big boys need to understand their effect that they have on smaller players. Shear size alone gives them the completive advantage with regard to space in the Time and Space paradigm. If the refs are calling penalties for contact to the head in the instances that you are identifying, then the players should be doing what they are taught “Read and React” to the officials calls as well as the players.

Peewees love to hit. They have been waiting years to start hitting; they finally get their chance. They need to be taught how and when to hit and for what purpose. Don’t get me wrong, checking is a big part of the game and I love that aspect of the game. The proper timing of a big hit can change a game. It could give a team a big needed lift, however it could also end a game due to injury. The game can just as easily be ended by a little player laying a big illegal hit on the bigger player as it can in the reverse. Do you think that you may be giving a Peewee B player too much credit by bending over to take a hit to draw a penalty? I don’t think so. If I were 11 or 12 and I see a big kid lining me up, I am going to do anything I can to avoid the hit. Think about when you played the game down at the park with the older kids, how many times did you get run before you started ducking?[/quote]

2. Players are taught to Read and React, if they are not being taught this fundamental then the coaches need to re-evaluate the practice plans.

This is unfair to coaches, they are teaching all 17 players in an hour practice and they are lucky is they have 50 hours of practice in a year. An to call teaching a large player (one of 17) to check not only honestly but differently from the other 16 "fundamental' I find distasteful. That is not fundamental coaching.

[Can't Never Tried]

Thought I'd throw another twist at this.
What about the little guy that throws a hip check on a bigger kid, and gets the tripping call for taking the knees out? I've seen it called many times.

[frederick61]

3. If a smaller kid is ducking away from the check, is there really a need to finish that check? It’s all about time and space. A player that is focused on avoiding a freight train and has turned his attention away from the play has been removed from the play. The big boys need to understand their effect that they have on smaller players.

I have seen smaller players duck to get by a larger player. Some are taught this tactic and they often will position their body and take a fall. Don't sympathize with the small player. If they can't cope with bigger players then they need to re-think about playing hockey. After the peewee level, the size, hitting and speed will only get worse. Peewee players who don't learn to cope, shouldn't move on. Refs should not penalize larger players for the "effect" they have on smaller players.

[frederick61]

4. Peewees love to hit.

This myth should be debunked right now. It creates a terrible impression of youth hockey. The truth is most peewees love to play the game and most aren't out there to hit. Most are out there to score a goal, be the best and to compete. As a kid is learning, they try things including a "hit". But they learn and thats what is needed. At 11, I jumped of a barn roof onto a haystack. I learned. Last time I did that.

[frederick61]

Thought I'd throw another twist at this.
What about the little guy that throws a hip check on a bigger kid, and gets the tripping call for taking the knees out? I've seen it called many times.

I also have seen that happen a number of times. It shouldn't be called a penalty. A good check should be seen as a good check regardless of the size of the players involved. But what I am reacting to is the idea that a larger player has an advantage and must be taught "a special approach" to hockey to compensate or the refs will call penalties so that the smaller player will not get hurt. I equate that with idea to turning the scoreboard off so all games end 0-0 and nobodies feeling are hurt.

Bad checks intended to hurt should be called and with the fair play point system punishing the player and the team, there are sufficient rules to persuade team and player to avoid them.

[hiptzech]

Gents,

Great replies and points, and as we are all aware, sometimes you can only type so much trying to explain your points. I trust that we could sit down, drink a coke and have a great conversation with point and counter-point and in the end, end up agreeing with each other for the most part. Don’t get me wrong on the hitting thing; I am aware of the need for checking and hits, as well as good and bad penalties to take. I am not only a ref; I am a coach, and player as well.

Panther,

Thanks for the support. I have no issue with the nit pick, as I mentioned above one can only type so much…To reiterate, I pulled this from one of my previous posts “Don’t get me wrong, checking is a big part of the game and I love that aspect of the game.” I agree with you as far as forechecking and finishing the check to prevent odd man rushes, they just need to be done within the rules of the game, including interference. I don’t see checking as a method of intimidation, I do however view the late avoidable check as a form of intimidation. Remember, when you are watching a game and you see a forward rush out and hit the D-man after he has shot or dumped the puck, and the forward has had ample time to avoid the contact? That non-call then demands the same non-call later in the game when the same D-man stands his blue line and slaughters the same forward who just completed a brake out pass and is in position to be the off wing breaking down the boards. In both cases they are considered in possession of the puck when the hit takes place. What coach are you? Who got the bad call? Did it cost you the game or did it save the game for you, because I forgot to mention they pulled their goalie and you are down one goal. Too many variability’s for me to remember the split second after the play is done for me to assess to many issue, because after all the eyes on are me to make or not make the call. No, I am making the first call to set the tone of the entire game. I will then be obligated to call the game the same way, I only hope my partner calls the same game. But that is a totally different thread.

So what I mean by pathetic crap is; we have been so conditioned growing up, especially those in the 80s (too old for that) that the interpretation of possession and control is a license to kill when it comes to finishing your check. Finishing the check needs to be re-learned and taught due to the higher standards of play. Don’t take my word for it, you should be seeing it in practicable application during the games. They will show up in and increase of roughing, charging, or interference calls.

My intimidation comment comes more from the Points of Emphasis, which talks more to the environment and mission verses the individual rules. It basically helps me finalize my decision whether I just saw a penalty or not all in the vane of game management.

I am not into calling penalties to protect the little guys, most of them are gritty and I get a kick out of watching them take big hit after big hit and just keep going.

[hiptzech]

Freddy,

I don’t have sympathy for the smaller players, nor do I go out of my way to protect them. To the contrary, I chirp at the bigger player when I see a big hit coming in an effort to avoid the penalty call. It’s great to see a slight adjustment in a player’s physical attitude just prior to making contact when a comment like “Hands” is yelled out. I admire the smaller players, especially those with the grit to take on the big boys, but they get no extra privileges from me due to their size.

We don’t agree with each other about the peewees and how they love to hit. I don’t take issue with that. I ref a great deal of peewee games and I see a lot of them going out of their way to make a check. They get so excited to hit that they will take themselves out of the play in an effort to hit. You just see the game differently then me, I am OK with that.

You have obviously taken acceptation to the points I have made as evidenced by your numbering system. I see numerous threads written by you, you seen to be living at the rink, you must see some of this stuff.

Guys…Checking is part of the game, I am all for it. You are concerned about my comment regarding the coaching aspect of the game. If you know hockey, you know that it doesn’t take a great deal of coaching to correct the checking part of the game. We are not talking about edge control or when to pinch and when you don’t. Judgment by the ref is critical to calling a game. Judgment by all of the participates of the game is equally important; you don’t have to agree with me, I am not looking for that. But if you are looking for some insight as to what goes through an officials mind you may want to consider what is be said and stressed. Argue what you want, I don’t write the rules; I call the game the best I can with an effort to avoid being an influence with the outcome.

[frederick61]

frederick61 stated "Most smaller kids, when being checked, duck their head. A bigger kid has no chance no matter how they are coached to avoid the penalty if the ref follows some standards. I have seen many peewee teams with larger players destroyed by refs calling penalties against smaller teams being coached to take the penalty-a lot of them in D6 especially at the B levels. Fortunately there are quality refs at the D6 A level in peewee that factor judgment and not solely rely on standards."

To which hiptzech replied with the following 4 points and frederick61 answered.
1. Replied "The proper use of a check is to separate a player from the puck or play, not to punish them."
frederick61 answered, "How does the ref determine what is a punishing check in hockey. It becomes a judgment call then an inexperienced ref just react to the hit. The larger player hitting a smaller player is not checking incorrectly, his check is delivered with more force because the laws of physics state that force is equal to mass times acceleration. If the larger player (mass) makes a legal check he will deliver more force. How to do coach a 11-12 year old to make his body smaller. Does he carry a magic button that loses 25 pounds of mass before a check?"

2. Replied "Players are taught to Read and React, if they are not being taught this fundamental then the coaches need to re-evaluate the practice plans."
frederick61 answered "This is unfair to coaches, they are teaching all 17 players in an hour practice and they are lucky is they have 50 hours of practice in a year. And to call teaching a large player (one of 17) to check not only honestly but differently from the other 16 "fundamental' I find distasteful. That is not fundamental coaching."

3. Replied "If a smaller kid is ducking away from the check, is there really a need to finish that check? It’s all about time and space. A player that is focused on avoiding a freight train and has turned his attention away from the play has been removed from the play. The big boys need to understand their effect that they have on smaller players.

frederick61 answered "I have seen smaller players duck to get by a larger player. Some are taught this tactic and they often will position their body and take a fall. Don't sympathize with the small player. If they can't cope with bigger players then they need to re-think about playing hockey. After the peewee level, the size, hitting and speed will only get worse. Peewee players who don't learn to cope, shouldn't move on. Refs should not penalize larger players for the "effect" they have on smaller players."

4. The Ref replied "Peewees love to hit."
frederick61 answered "This myth should be debunked right now. It creates a terrible impression of youth hockey. The truth is most peewees love to play the game and most aren't out there to hit. Most are out there to score a goal, be the best and to compete. As a kid is learning, they try things including a "hit". But they learn and thats what is needed. At 11, I jumped of a barn roof onto a haystack. I learned. Last time I did that."

"hiptzech" I summarize this because the conversation is on how a ref calls a peewee game with large and small players. I tried to point out that no matter what a large player does, inexperienced refs following some standards will always call the penalty and that it is difficult for a coach to teach a large peewee player to play small. I took your reply and responded to what I thought were your 4 key points (above) that I thought were worthy of debate. But your latest response I don't understand. My two observations are; you open with the fact that you will begin "chirping" at a player as he is making a big hit and you close with "I call the game to avoid being an influence". How do you know what the player was going to do. A peewee game is not that slow. By “chirping” haven't you influenced his play and the game? The second observation is your comment on my time spent at a rink. Somehow, I don't think that enters into a discussion of large versus small players and refs.

[Can't Never Tried]

A ref can anticipate what he thinks is going to happen as much as any other player on the ice, the chirping to the players is a warning that he is aware of what's happening to that effect, whether or not it actually happens.
The idea is to keep play going as far as I know.

[hiptzech]

Thanks Can't Never: You are following me.

Freddy,

I have gone back and read the manuscripts, thank you for summarizing and paraphrasing. Are there inexperienced refs out there? Yes. Do they sometimes make questionable calls? Yes. Do they miss calls? Yes. Could they be influenced by size? Yes. There you have it. They also fall down, get hit by pucks, and listen to coaches and parents looking for an NHL quality game as well. What more do you want?

Yes, judgment comes in to play. Do I influence the game, at times yes, but for the safety and management of the game? NOT the outcome. The chirping is used as a tool to keep the game safe and moving forward. When you see a player standing 2 feet off the end boards, and another player (regardless of size) bearing down hard and fast on him, you have a choice to make. Quietly stand there and what for the outcome, or “chirp” at a player and let him know that you are there and watching. Never mind not knowing what is going to happen next, player A turns his back and faces the boards, player B leaves his feet to deliver what he thinks is a legal good hard hit, or nothing but a good old fashion hit that is delivered clean and hard. As long as the hit is legal, I don’t care about size, mass or whether global warming is affecting the ice temperature and the neutral zone face off dot.

I can’t figure out if you give coaches enough credit or too much. You say they don’t have the time, or obligation to teach their player when and how to check. But I am confused, you will say that there are coaches out there teaching their smaller players to duck their heads and draw a penalty. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. Which one is it? The coaches of the smaller teams are taking the time to teach their kids how to take a check that may hurt them, but will draw a penalty. But the teams with the larger skaters don’t have the time to take to teach a kid how to deliver a legal check. We are talking about Peewees.

Let me see if I have this one right. We have the conspiracy theory going here, this tops all of them. We have smaller players being taught to bend over and take a hit to the head from a larger player all for the common good of the team. This isn’t happening at A level, but at the B and below because the more experienced ref are applying judgment to their game management theory at the A level. So the Peewee B and below “smaller” teams have conspired with the inexperienced refs of D6 to destroy the “larger” teams. This is better than Star Wars, Bad News Bears, and Watergate all rolled together.

I am wrapping it up her….soon. You say my comment regarding Peewees loving to hit should be debunked and creates a terrible impression of youth hockey. Again, you have confused me. You make this comment and it leaves one with the impression that you don’t like hitting in the game, but you continue to try to make points to the contrary. What is it, do you have an axe to grind with hockey refs? Let me guess when you jumped out of the barn roof you had no choice because a gang of Umpa Lumpas dressed in stripes removed the ladder from the side of the barn. You are a big guy and the stack of hay was too small to cushion your fall. After all we all know that the laws of physics state that force is equal to mass times acceleration

Someone help me here. Is it me or should I be using Fredrick as the standard the judge and understand the common spectator? Fredrick, you need to get closer to the game. If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you to at the very least put sometime into volunteering to run the game clock or penalty box during a game. You will learn a lot between periods when the refs take to the penalty box listen to the dialog and exchange between partners. You will learn that there are discussions about big hits, what player is stretching the limits and all about game management. Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands.

[Can't Never Tried]

Thanks Can't Never: You are following me.

Freddy,

I have gone back and read the manuscripts, thank you for summarizing and paraphrasing. Are there inexperienced refs out there? Yes. Do they sometimes make questionable calls? Yes. Do they miss calls? Yes. Could they be influenced by size? Yes. There you have it. They also fall down, get hit by pucks, and listen to coaches and parents looking for an NHL quality game as well. What more do you want?

Yes, judgment comes in to play. Do I influence the game, at times yes, but for the safety and management of the game? NOT the outcome. The chirping is used as a tool to keep the game safe and moving forward. When you see a player standing 2 feet off the end boards, and another player (regardless of size) bearing down hard and fast on him, you have a choice to make. Quietly stand there and what for the outcome, or “chirp” at a player and let him know that you are there and watching. Never mind not knowing what is going to happen next, player A turns his back and faces the boards, player B leaves his feet to deliver what he thinks is a legal good hard hit, or nothing but a good old fashion hit that is delivered clean and hard. As long as the hit is legal, I don’t care about size, mass or whether global warming is affecting the ice temperature and the neutral zone face off dot.

I can’t figure out if you give coaches enough credit or too much. You say they don’t have the time, or obligation to teach their player when and how to check. But I am confused, you will say that there are coaches out there teaching their smaller players to duck their heads and draw a penalty. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. Which one is it? The coaches of the smaller teams are taking the time to teach their kids how to take a check that may hurt them, but will draw a penalty. But the teams with the larger skaters don’t have the time to take to teach a kid how to deliver a legal check. We are talking about Peewees.

Let me see if I have this one right. We have the conspiracy theory going here, this tops all of them. We have smaller players being taught to bend over and take a hit to the head from a larger player all for the common good of the team. This isn’t happening at A level, but at the B and below because the more experienced ref are applying judgment to their game management theory at the A level. So the Peewee B and below “smaller” teams have conspired with the inexperienced refs of D6 to destroy the “larger” teams. This is better than Star Wars, Bad News Bears, and Watergate all rolled together.

I am wrapping it up her….soon. You say my comment regarding Peewees loving to hit should be debunked and creates a terrible impression of youth hockey. Again, you have confused me. You make this comment and it leaves one with the impression that you don’t like hitting in the game, but you continue to try to make points to the contrary. What is it, do you have an axe to grind with hockey refs? Let me guess when you jumped out of the barn roof you had no choice because a gang of Umpa Lumpas dressed in stripes removed the ladder from the side of the barn. You are a big guy and the stack of hay was too small to cushion your fall. After all we all know that the laws of physics state that force is equal to mass times acceleration

Someone help me here. Is it me or should I be using Fredrick as the standard the judge and understand the common spectator? Fredrick, you need to get closer to the game. If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you to at the very least put sometime into volunteering to run the game clock or penalty box during a game. You will learn a lot between periods when the refs take to the penalty box listen to the dialog and exchange between partners. You will learn that there are discussions about big hits, what player is stretching the limits and all about game management. Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands.

And they say there is a writers strike!

Good read with many valid points.
Is there that much of a spread in quality in youth refs from say PWB to Bantam B ? I don't think I see that much. IDK

[hiptzech]

Thanks Can't Never: You are following me.

And they say there is a writers strike!

Good read with many valid points.
Is there that much of a spread in quality in youth refs from say PWB to Bantam B ? I don't think I see that much. IDK

CNT,
The writer had to edit his own work. I was attempting to keep it clean and have a pile lying on the cutting room floor.

In general you shouldn't see much of a disparity between the levels that you mention. It think that may be a level 2 ref with a couple years of experience. It just depends on the ref and how they are progressing with the skills and maturity. In my opinion the D6 scheduler and ref supervisor do a good job of matching jr. refs with senior refs as needed. They do a great job of moving refs up and insuring that the games are officiated with integrity and sound leadership. We are evaluated annually, and sometimes more than once a season. The evaluations are reviewed with the evaluator was well as the evaluated and their partner. It is very beneficial to get evaluated and also to hear how your partner did as you can learn from it. Just when you think you have it figured out, there is something new to work on, continuous work to achieve the expectations.

[Can't Never Tried]

We are evaluated annually, and sometimes more than once a season.

Isn't it more like every game isn't it?

I have rarely been to a game, that know it all fans are not going out of their way to give the refs their evaluation

Can't say I've not helped get a face off or two in the right zone in my time.

[hiptzech]

We are evaluated annually, and sometimes more than once a season.

Isn't it more like every game isn't it?

I have rarely been to a game, that know it all fans are not going out of their way to give the refs their evaluation

Can't say I've not helped get a face off or two in the right zone in my time.

We always get help, sometimes it is appreciated. The most beneficial is to hear the net is off, sometimes you can't always see that with battles in the slot. Do you watch high, or do you watch low? Focus on the puck in the crease for the goal scored, you will see the net move but you mss the interference. Focus high, for the interference, cross checks and what not and you miss the puck in the net or off the morings. It's not the message, but rather the manner in which it is delivered. I usally look up, smile, give a nod and go about my job.
It's a funny situation when you think about it. I work for the membership of USA Hockey, the vast majority of the people that are members are coaches, players, and officials. The parents may write the check but I don't work for them. So, in my position I have to listen to people offer their assistance that are attending the game for free. Funny ain't it. Don't get me wrong, parents are extremely important to the game and the future of hockey. I appreciate the opportunity to work with (actually for) their kids, it would just be nice if they were to allow the coaches, officials, and players work together without the negative banter...We are a non-profit organization, with absolutely no tangiable return on investment. Only the growth and development of young people and hockey players.

[Can't Never Tried]

We are evaluated annually, and sometimes more than once a season.

Isn't it more like every game isn't it?

I have rarely been to a game, that know it all fans are not going out of their way to give the refs their evaluation

Can't say I've not helped get a face off or two in the right zone in my time.

We always get help, sometimes it is appreciated. The most beneficial is to hear the net is off, sometimes you can't always see that with battles in the slot. Do you watch high, or do you watch low? Focus on the puck in the crease for the goal scored, you will see the net move but you mss the interference. Focus high, for the interference, cross checks and what not and you miss the puck in the net or off the morings. It's not the message, but rather the manner in which it is delivered. I usally look up, smile, give a nod and go about my job.
It's a funny situation when you think about it. I work for the membership of USA Hockey, the vast majority of the people that are members are coaches, players, and officials. The parents may write the check but I don't work for them. So, in my position I have to listen to people offer their assistance that are attending the game for free. Funny ain't it. Don't get me wrong, parents are extremely important to the game and the future of hockey. I appreciate the opportunity to work with (actually for) their kids, it would just be nice if they were to allow the coaches, officials, and players work together without the negative banter...We are a non-profit organization, with absolutely no tangiable return on investment. Only the growth and development of young people and hockey players.

Having been a coach I understand that it's all easy from the stands.

[hiptzech]

Having been a coach I understand that it's all easy from the stands. [/quote]

They big difference between the 2 of us? When the game ends for me, they go away until a new heard comes through. You get them for the entire season including the dinner time phone calls.

[Can't Never Tried]

Having been a coach I understand that it's all easy from the stands.

They big difference between the 2 of us? When the game ends for me, they go away until a new heard comes through. You get them for the entire season including the dinner time phone calls. [/quote]


That's in the past now.
But why do you think the coaches get so crabby with you guys
Your calling all those darn penalties, so now they have to use special teams, and so some kids lose playing time, thus the phone calls.

[hiptzech]

That's in the past now.
But why do you think the coaches get so crabby with you guys
Your calling all those darn penalties, so now they have to use special teams, and so some kids lose playing time, thus the phone calls. [/quote]

That coaching is a tough position to be in. With the "B's" and below the expectations dip a little, makes it all the more fun with the reduced expectations and more appreciation from the parents. Special Teams gotta use them if you want to win and avoid those phone calls. If you don't use them in an effort to give fair and equal playing time, as well as development you stand a chance at loosing and getting the calls. What do you do? Maybe the refs could put the whistle away and not call the penalties, but then we are right back to where we were before, then we get the calls from the boss.
I have an idea. Let's do away with non-parent coaches. Have all of the parents on the bench at one time, and let them participate. They can call each other via cell phone from either end of the bench and negotiate line changes. If fact, we could develop a phone tree and share the numbers with the opposing team. Link in the officials, both on ice and off ice. We could use the penalty box as command central, and we could have air traffic control from high in the bleachers. Everybody gets a phone. We can have one of those mandatory voluntary fundraisers to pay for the cost of the phones. The phones are limited to 1 min of air time per a 24 hour period, use the call wisely.
Of course it will be arranged at some point that the game ends in a tie, with all players getting hat tricks and all fair play points in tact. Everybody gets a trophy, and there is not penalty(no penalties allowed) for going over your allotted cell phone time.

[Can't Never Tried]

That's in the past now.
But why do you think the coaches get so crabby with you guys
Your calling all those darn penalties, so now they have to use special teams, and so some kids lose playing time, thus the phone calls.

That coaching is a tough position to be in. With the "B's" and below the expectations dip a little, makes it all the more fun with the reduced expectations and more appreciation from the parents. Special Teams gotta use them if you want to win and avoid those phone calls. If you don't use them in an effort to give fair and equal playing time, as well as development you stand a chance at loosing and getting the calls. What do you do? Maybe the refs could put the whistle away and not call the penalties, but then we are right back to where we were before, then we get the calls from the boss.
I have an idea. Let's do away with non-parent coaches. Have all of the parents on the bench at one time, and let them participate. They can call each other via cell phone from either end of the bench and negotiate line changes. If fact, we could develop a phone tree and share the numbers with the opposing team. Link in the officials, both on ice and off ice. We could use the penalty box as command central, and we could have air traffic control from high in the bleachers. Everybody gets a phone. We can have one of those mandatory voluntary fundraisers to pay for the cost of the phones. The phones are limited to 1 min of air time per a 24 hour period, use the call wisely.
Of course it will be arranged at some point that the game ends in a tie, with all players getting hat tricks and all fair play points in tact. Everybody gets a trophy, and there is not penalty(no penalties allowed) for going over your allotted cell phone time.

We used to tell the _itchy mom's and dads every couple years, that we were going to have a parents coach day where they had to make up all the lines, and call the changes, etc. and we'd always set it up to do it at a tournament on Sunday, that way it was usually the most important game of the tourney, so if they hosed up it would be their fault, seeing as it's so easy to do.
The complaining stopped and it never actually happened.

[BoogeyMan]

That's kind of funny. We were going to have. "Hockey coaches know it all day"

But then we found out that's every time we show up to the rink.

Relax! Just a joke.

Thanks for volunteering.

[frederick61]

Hiptzech wrote:
Someone help me here. Is it me or should I be using Fredrick as the standard the judge and understand the common spectator? Fredrick, you need to get closer to the game. If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you to at the very least put sometime into volunteering to run the game clock or penalty box during a game. You will learn a lot between periods when the refs take to the penalty box listen to the dialog and exchange between partners. You will learn that there are discussions about big hits, what player is stretching the limits and all about game management. Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands.

Why is it that you always get arrogant and personal. You don't know how close to the game I have been. For starters, I first worked a bench for a high school team on outdoor ice in an Iron Range conference game in 1960. You can't get much closer to the sport then that. I would be equally arrogant if I called your analysis the equivalent of a Harvard school of business CPA, precise and meaningless. So I won't call you that. This is not an ego trip, but a debate that I hope others are following. I have not proposed a standard, but have preached that Refs that use standards especially inexperience ones can ruin a good hockey team and game because a large kid (mass) hitting a small kid (less mass) delivers more force.

[hiptzech]

Hiptzech wrote:
Someone help me here. Is it me or should I be using Fredrick as the standard the judge and understand the common spectator? Fredrick, you need to get closer to the game. If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you to at the very least put sometime into volunteering to run the game clock or penalty box during a game. You will learn a lot between periods when the refs take to the penalty box listen to the dialog and exchange between partners. You will learn that there are discussions about big hits, what player is stretching the limits and all about game management. Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands.

Why is it that you always get arrogant and personal. You don't know how close to the game I have been. For starters, I first worked a bench for a high school team on outdoor ice in an Iron Range conference game in 1960. You can't get much closer to the sport then that. I would be equally arrogant if I called your analysis the equivalent of a Harvard school of business CPA, precise and meaningless. So I won't call you that. This is not an ego trip, but a debate that I hope others are following. I have not proposed a standard, but have preached that Refs that use standards especially inexperience ones can ruin a good hockey team and game because a large kid (mass) hitting a small kid (less mass) delivers more force.

Why you ask, do I come off as arrogant and with an ego? When I am on the ice officiating, I cannot show weakness. I need to portray confidence in the way I officiate. When I make a call it is with deliberate confidence, anything else shows doubt in my call, regardless of an offside call or too many men on the ice.

Let me take you back to 1969. Henry Boucha, state tourament championship against Edina. Boucha had 1 assist and was the talk of the tourney, and a true threat to Edina. Think about the hit that he took, some people including Nanne called the hit clean, although Knutson took an elbowing call. Did the check that Boucha take separate him from the puck and the play, yes. It also put him out of the game, the tournament, and the game, however was the force that was used neccasary? I would say, yes if you were playing against him and for Edina. Was the official that made the elbowing call right or did he react to the result of the hit? Couldn’t tell you, I am glad I wasn’t in his position to make the call. Oh and Henry, he is a pretty big guy, to my point about ending the game from a hit to a big boy. How did you feel about that hit and play? Only you can answer it.

The standards are in place to offer a consistant game, the standards are there to call the game in which it was intended to play. As I have said previously, judgement comes into play. I have grow tired of this debate as I don’t care to beat a dead horse. I hope that one day our paths will cross and we can continue this debate. Enjoy the game…Good Bye for now…

[frederick61]

The 1969 Tournament was a watershed tournament in this state's hockey history. It was the first tournament played at the "new" Met Center in Bloomington after years of being played in St. Paul. That allowed crowds of 15,000 plus per session plus broader TV coverage. It also signaled the end Northern Minnesota dominance. It was the 25th tournament. At that time, the North had three entries into the tourney, Region 7, 8 and 3 (runner-up). The "south" mostly the cities had 5 entries. Warroad lost to Roseau in the Region 8 finals and beat Eveleth in the Region 3 runner-up game in 2 ots. Boucha played that game with one eye swollen from a hit during the game and scored the winning goal at the end of the second overtime.

Warroad was not given much chance to win the tournament. Boucha was considered a big gun, but Roseau, Edina, and Greenway (going for it third) were considered the best. No southern or city team, other then St. Paul Johnson (4 times) had ever won the state tournament till that tournament. The northern teams had dominated.

What made Boucha special was Warroad was the underdog and a small school playing a big school (Edina) on TV in front of 15,000 plus. In the first two tournament games, Boucha never left the ice. He was on the ice in the entire games except for something like 30 seconds. Edina skated three lines. I was on business that week-end in Newport News, Va. I saw the game at the hotel on a Sunday morning tape delay.

I am glad you brought it up. It brings back some good memories. I remember the hit, but I can't comment. Most people reacted negatively to Edina winning because of talk that Edina was gunning for him. He later played pro and suffered an eye injury in a stick swinging fight with Boston's Dave Forbes in the mid-70's. A side note, Alan Hangsleben was a teammate on the 1969 team, later drafted by Montreal. He ended up playing in the WHA and NHL for 10 years. Longer then Boucha.

But to me the 1969 tourney changed hockey. After 1974, the back door Region 3 was dropped (Hill-Murray promptly took it over). The sport grew.

The only other comment I would make about the 1969 game is that no ref would do any "chirping" during that game. They would have squawk at the top of their lungs to be heard.

[DaSTeK]

In a more urban fashion. Youthful indeed,

USA Hockey and the Refs are turning Hockey into a more "PLEASE BAN ME" sport.

Hockey will soon be next to basketball in terms of physical contact.

[oldtimer64]

I must say normally I like D6 refs but after what I witnessed tonight in the burnsville tourney (pwa games)they must of had the JV squad. They singled handle ruined the Anoka/AV game and LVN/Hastings game way to many ticky tat penalties never let either game get flowing. I think refs have a thankless job but these refs tonight ruined what could have been some good up and down action.