frederick61 wrote: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…
I am glad there are officials out there like you hipz. Coaches understand calls you make when they go both ways and as for the hitting aspect, there has to be some form of intimidation factor. I am not saying go head hunting, but when a big hit is layed on a player it is a fatigue factor as well. I do not condone, nor will I ever, send a player/team after another teams top player to injure them. However, when they get the puck I will make sure that the star player will know we know it. Perhaps it is a different game from Peewees to bantams and on up but if you do not tell your players to go out and give it their ALL on every play, hit or shot then are you really coaching them to their full potential? A good rub out is just as effective as a bone crunching hit on some players but others can hold onto the puck through a rub out. There is a necessity for a good clean forceful hit to take place and it can set a precidence for the entire game depending on how the officials call it. If it is a rivalry game, I would expect the officials to not call the first few big hits until there is a blatant call to be made. The emotion and intensity of the game will be spotted even before the first drop of the puck.
Hipz~
Going into a rivalry game, do you remind yourself before the drop of the puck that it is so? If you do, does it change your perception of a penalty or "necessary force" of a check?
Hiptzech wrote "If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you (meaning me) 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... Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands."
To which I replied, "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 then that."
To which I received no reply. Hiptzech takes a personal shot when he can't argue the issues. If you read is comments in this thread you will quickly see his bias as a ref mostly because he has conclusions on how the peewee game will be played before he drops the puck. I saw two D6 refs do an excellent job at Eden Prairie tourney this week in two games because they effectively controlled the game without imposing any pre-disposed ideas on the players such as "peewees love to hit". And they called penalties when they happened.
Again the original argument was large peewee players hitting small peewee players and why is the big player called for a penalty. Again, I pointed out basic physics: big player(mass) times acceleration creates more force then small player (smaller mass) times acceleration. Small player loses. Understand the physics, take out the bias, and call the game gentlemen. Or go ref an outdoor game up north so you can get close to the sport.
Thanks newsguy35,
There is only one game that is better than a rivalry, the inter-association game. I had the privilege of officiating an Edina vs. Edina Bantam game. My partner and I were looking forward to it, because we knew it would be a great game played with plenty of intensity. The difference between the 2 types of games is it is highly unlikely that you will have to deal with cheap shots and after the whistle hits and pushing. However, as the game goes on, and gets close to completion the game intensifies to the point that you would expect the cheap stuff coming in, but it doesn’t come.
Your question: Going into a rivalry game, do you remind yourself before the drop of the puck that it is so? If you do, does it change your perception of a penalty or "necessary force" of a check? For the most part, I am not looking at “necessary force” but rather the check itself. When is the check applied? Where is the check applied (location of the boards)? What part of the body is doing the checking and what part of the body is the check being applied. Do rivals play with more intensity, you bet. It is when the intensity elevates the emotions of the players to the point where it gets cheap and illegal. You have to be aware of the intensity of the players and the game, but you have to let the players dictate the play of the game. A big hit early in the game that is legal shouldn’t be called in an effort to control the intensity, but the focus needs to shift to the retaliation hits after the big one and discern if they are legal or not. One big hit warrants another big hit, they just need to be legal.
I agree with you on the fatigue factor as well as intimidation. To reiterate, my comment regarding intimidation is from the USA Rule Book in the area of Points of Emphasis. A good solid hit in the neutral zone, can make the best players “hear footsteps” then next time a break out pass comes his way, he very well may be anticipating another big hit and miss the pass. The same analogy of a DB in football laying a good hit on a receiver over the middle in the secondary. The neutral zone hit can create a missed pass that turns into an all-important icing call.
Fredrick,
Start a new post to conduct your continued banter. Either that or take a nap, go back and re-read what has been and continues to be said. You’re wasting your time. You never answered my questions until you do you stop embarrassing yourself.
frederick61 wrote:Hiptzech wrote "If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you (meaning me) 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... Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands."
To which I replied, "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 then that."
To which I received no reply. Hiptzech takes a personal shot when he can't argue the issues. If you read is comments in this thread you will quickly see his bias as a ref mostly because he has conclusions on how the peewee game will be played before he drops the puck. I saw two D6 refs do an excellent job at Eden Prairie tourney this week in two games because they effectively controlled the game without imposing any pre-disposed ideas on the players such as "peewees love to hit". And they called penalties when they happened.
Again the original argument was large peewee players hitting small peewee players and why is the big player called for a penalty. Again, I pointed out basic physics: big player(mass) times acceleration creates more force then small player (smaller mass) times acceleration. Small player loses. Understand the physics, take out the bias, and call the game gentlemen. Or go ref an outdoor game up north so you can get close to the sport.
To which Hiptzech replied, "Fredrick, Start a new post to conduct your continued banter. Either that or take a nap, go back and re-read what has been and continues to be said. You’re wasting your time. You never answered my questions until you do you stop embarrassing yourself." I rest my case, Hiptzech takes another personal shot. At least I am no longer in the stands.
frederick61 wrote:Hiptzech wrote "If you can’t get on the ice and officiate, and you don’t have the time to put into coaching, I encourage you (meaning me) 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... Until you take this next step in furthering your hockey education you will only see the game from the top row of the stands."
To which I replied, "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 then that."
To which I received no reply. Hiptzech takes a personal shot when he can't argue the issues. If you read is comments in this thread you will quickly see his bias as a ref mostly because he has conclusions on how the peewee game will be played before he drops the puck. I saw two D6 refs do an excellent job at Eden Prairie tourney this week in two games because they effectively controlled the game without imposing any pre-disposed ideas on the players such as "peewees love to hit". And they called penalties when they happened.
Again the original argument was large peewee players hitting small peewee players and why is the big player called for a penalty. Again, I pointed out basic physics: big player(mass) times acceleration creates more force then small player (smaller mass) times acceleration. Small player loses. Understand the physics, take out the bias, and call the game gentlemen. Or go ref an outdoor game up north so you can get close to the sport.
To which Hiptzech replied, "Fredrick, Start a new post to conduct your continued banter. Either that or take a nap, go back and re-read what has been and continues to be said. You’re wasting your time. You never answered my questions until you do you stop embarrassing yourself." I rest my case, Hiptzech takes another personal shot. At least I am no longer in the stands.
Frederick,
I feel compelled to re-engage you for a moment. It appears you have been out to the rinks and busy watching the Tourneys. If you have spent time at both Tourneys, you have seen me work games. I am curious to get your feedback on the officiating you saw, what you liked and didn’t like…I will come clean and tell you the games I worked, and it appears you were there. So if you can remember through all the games that you have watched over the past few days, what did you think? I am confident that you will come back with some positive feedback, but I have to ask…I will narrow it down for you. Edina Thursday (Edina)., Friday (Bloomington)., Sat (Bloomington)