Pee Wee Checking Debate

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:32 am

Bantam game the other night, same kid got a 5 minute roughing and a 2 and 10 for a check from behind...but with no intent to injure or three penalty rule, was allowed back on the ice again for a nice slash.

If I'm the coach he sits the first period of the next game. This player is hurting his team.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:27 am

edgeless2 wrote:
You make zero sense. I must have missed the cannonball section of the USA hockey contact video.

All I'm saying is that your idea of "finishing your check" is correct -- after contact is initiated, a good check has proper follow through and bad check has bad follow through -- either way, the check gets finished.

What MOST people call "finishing a check" is simply nailing someone after the puck has gone somewhere else, like an unstoppable cannon ball. Since most people are wrong, I'm suggesting the words "finish your check" are meaningless and actually harmful.

Since you know what you're talking about, you can join me in this effort to stamp out ignorance. Thank you!

Obviously, there are cases where contact is initiated before the puck has moved away and finished after the puck is gone. That, I think, is the source of the confusion. But I've seen way too many Pee Wees taking runs at other kids long after the puck is gone, and in some cases before it ever got there. It happens all the time at higher levels too. This "finishing your check" is all over the place, and it's sloppy and widely tolerated all the way up to the NHL.

edgeless2 · Post by **edgeless2** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:24 pm

Stripes2011 wrote:My intent was to give an example. in general purpose the rule, or interpetation, is to determine if the player is playing the Puck or the Body. I was just using an example that if the stick is off the ice the intent to play the puck was eliminated, this can assist an official in making the call. I agree, Body contact will and should still be part of the game. Beleive me, all us officials, just like coaches, parents, etc have differnt tollerance level for body contact. I'm just sticking up for "us" officials who have to make these calls. Its like a close call in baseball half the people think its a "bad call" the other half liked it.

Thanks for the posts, hopefully these posts can help everyone see all sides what is taking place on the ice.

Good Luck this year I think that the amount of interpretation that USA hockey has put on your table is insane.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:43 pm

stripes: I don't know if officials have been provided better film of legal vs. illegal body contact. I would hope so. I viewed the film on the USA Hockey website. Interesting most legal contact were NHL games and illegal contact were from National PW Tournament games. From what I saw, body contact along the boards to stop progress is legal.

I would say it's very obvious to judge intent for a player wanting to "kill" another player versus separating him for the puck.

If the main focus is attempting to "play the puck first", picture the "human cannonball" going full speed head-on at the puck carrier also going full speed. As long as he "plays the puck" before sending him head over heels into the boards, that's OK?

Stripes2011 · Post by **Stripes2011** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:57 pm

Badger Bob: I can't obvioulsy answer for every official, but from what your discribing as a "human cannonball" sounds pretty obvious that most officials may give that a Charging Call, No matter if its a checking league or non checking classifaction. The game may be alittle tougher to call until each official/league gets some experience and initial bugs worked out on consistancies, but in the end all will be OK. I wish it was black and white, but that may eliminate some of the fun and would not give us a reason to sneek away from our Day jobs to Post like this

Again - just don't bite my head off if our judgements differ

I have a passion for the game, kids, competition and a respect for the rules. (I don't create the rules, I just have to live by them)

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:14 pm

This will be a repeat for some.

I divide penalties into 3 catagories.

1. Accidental hard working

2. Dumb

3. Not worth the risk

Many more penalties come from #2 and #3 than #1. Interestingly, both 2 and 3 can be elimated cutting penalities by 80%. Because you can't beat a stonger opponent shorthanded imagine reducing your teams penalities by 80%. That's gotta be the goal. Now you have a chance. Top players are on the ice scoring goals not sitting in the box.

farmington14 · Post by **farmington14** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:48 pm

observer wrote:This will be a repeat for some.

I divide penalties into 3 catagories.

1. Accidental hard working

2. Dumb

3. Not worth the risk

Many more penalties come from #2 and #3 than #1. Interestingly, both 2 and 3 can be elimated cutting penalities by 80%. Because you can't beat a stonger opponent shorthanded imagine reducing your teams penalities by 80%. That's gotta be the goal. Now you have a chance. Top players are on the ice scoring goals not sitting in the box.

You can add another catagory called Incidental Contact, maybe this belongs in #1, seen a few of these called already, no intent to check at all but someone has to go to the box now, just another form of squirt hockey.