NEW RULES STATISTICS from 1/17/12**

[rudy]

I would be interested in what people see in the coming weeks regarding players putting themselves in vulnerable positions. given the advantage a team may realize, it only makes sense that more puck carriers will turn their backs to their rivals along the boards -- not a safe move -- in hopes of either drawing penalties or gaining a game-situation advantage.

I really don't think players are turning their backs to the play to draw a penalty as much as you might think. I think more than likely they are turning their backs to their rivals along the boards for a variety of other reasons...protect the puck, trying to escape/avoid contact, knee jerk reaction, etc. rather than draw a call.

It is a fast game. Puck carriers have to read and react just as quickly as those considering contact. A lot of times they don't make the right decision.

of course, it's hard to say one way or another this early, given that the new enforcement has just begun. give the coaches some time to see how they can turn this to their teams' advantage and then you might see players more routinely turn their backs along the boards. dunno, just wanna hear what people are seeing the rest of the way.

[pioneers]

In the H-M EP game the first major + 10 for checking from behind was called on EP which put them down 2 men at the time. H-M scored with the 2 man advantage and then scored once during the remaining major time to make the score 4-3 at the time. No goals were scored during the major + 10 for boarding that was called on H-M in the third period.

[Shinbone_News]

Agree, and I'll add that for any change to be lasting, they need to keep calling the game tightly into the future. I also think MSHSL and youth hockey need to step up evaluation of referees in real games. Are they doing their jobs, enforcing the rules that are intended to minimize risk and cheating? Are they enforcing consistently throughout the game, regardless of game situation and how much time is on the clock? They're never going to see everything, but they should be expected to call infractions that they see.

And I'll say it again: STOP giving HS coaches the right to blackball refs, which insures that high school refs are the ones who are least likely to make a tough call. (Just about any major + misconduct is going to be a "tough call" in the heat of a game.) I've asked lots of experienced youth refs about this, and most are glad NOT to ref HS because they aren't given the respect and support to call it like it should be called.

[mn man]

In the H-M EP game the first major + 10 for checking from behind was called on EP which put them down 2 men at the time. H-M scored with the 2 man advantage and then scored once during the remaining major time to make the score 4-3 at the time. No goals were scored during the major + 10 for boarding that was called on H-M in the third period.

The boarding on HM in the 3rd was with 1:17 left in the game. The player did not even have to sit two minutes. Brings up the question as to how to handle this type of penalty with little time remaining in the game, game misconduct, out the next game?

[seek & destroy]

I will clearly state that I do not like the new rules. They were added too fast and, in my opinion, not needed. I hate dirty hits just as much as the next guy and I am a big proponent that we need to clean up the game and make it safer. However, the rules were already in place and only required a memo from MSHSL to all refs that they need to call those types of penalties more closely.

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. They should be well thought out and discussed at length to determine a) if they're needed b) the best way to implement them. There was a much heightened awareness of the issue due to the terrible tragedies that occurred. Refs were going to call things more closely and coaches were going to impress on kids that dirty hits are not acceptable. But, before they could give that a chance, rules were changed over a weekend.

Again, I hate dirty hits and I never want to see another player experience a tragic injury. But I don't believe that there were that many players deliberately playing dirty or coaches at the H.S. level telling their kids to play dirty. There are quite a few players that lack some discipline and some can't handle the high speed with control...they are most dangerous. Having a ref make a determination of whether the intent was there to injure is a valuable part of the game in order to not have players lobbying for penalty calls. The fact that refs were getting soft on calls (in large part due to a lot of complaining by coaches, players & fans) is something that could have been corrected without changing the rules. Refs would have listened if told to call the game more tightly and, if coaches/players/fans had to back off of whining when a call went against them, more calls would have been made. I'm not defending the refs not calling them the way they should have been called, I'm just saying that if they got 'soft' it may have been because they were trying to limit drawing the ire of the coaches or crowd by calling too many major penalties.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

[Zamman]

I will clearly state that I do not like the new rules. They were added too fast and, in my opinion, not needed. I hate dirty hits just as much as the next guy and I am a big proponent that we need to clean up the game and make it safer. However, the rules were already in place and only required a memo from MSHSL to all refs that they need to call those types of penalties more closely.

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. They should be well thought out and discussed at length to determine a) if they're needed b) the best way to implement them. There was a much heightened awareness of the issue due to the terrible tragedies that occurred. Refs were going to call things more closely and coaches were going to impress on kids that dirty hits are not acceptable. But, before they could give that a chance, rules were changed over a weekend.

Again, I hate dirty hits and I never want to see another player experience a tragic injury. But I don't believe that there were that many players deliberately playing dirty or coaches at the H.S. level telling their kids to play dirty. There are quite a few players that lack some discipline and some can't handle the high speed with control...they are most dangerous. Having a ref make a determination of whether the intent was there to injure is a valuable part of the game in order to not have players lobbying for penalty calls. The fact that refs were getting soft on calls (in large part due to a lot of complaining by coaches, players & fans) is something that could have been corrected without changing the rules. Refs would have listened if told to call the game more tightly and, if coaches/players/fans had to back off of whining when a call went against them, more calls would have been made. I'm not defending the refs not calling them the way they should have been called, I'm just saying that if they got 'soft' it may have been because they were trying to limit drawing the ire of the coaches or crowd by calling too many major penalties.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

I second this.....

[icehornet]

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

As I posted in the other thread, what "major" rule changes have happened? How much is this truly going to change the game? The point of a penalty is to discourage some action or incident from happening, doesn't it make sense to have the most dangerous infractions penalized more harshly to reduce the rate they occur? If the coaches/players don't want to spend 5 minutes short-handed there's a pretty simple solution.

I agree with your point about those deliberately trying to draw a penalty.

[observer]

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

Definitely seen players trying to draw a call. Maybe even at the coach’s suggestion (UND). My problem, as you’re saying, is the difference between intentional and accidental. I know a trip, whether it was done with purpose or accidental, it's still a trip. But with a check from behind I don't see how it can be a major when the receiving player ducks and turns. To me that should have be just a 2 minute penalty. The refs skate off and discuss, and the player is hurt, and they immediately call it a 2 and 10 (under the old rules). To me that has to be a 2 minute penalty and they can't add the 10 if it was the fault of the player getting hit regardless of an injury. I saw it twice in one game over a month ago. Twice players came in for appropriate hits and the receiving players were the one that caused the problem. In both instances the refs called 2 and 10s when for me, even though I thought even the 2 minute calls were wrong, should have been 2 minutes only. The crumpling to the ice was totally the doing of the recipient. It shouldn't be based on if the player is hurt or not. He could be a weak player, super small, have a slight previous injury or just fall wrong. To me it's all about intent. If the player is coming in hot and trying to blast the player then it's the major call. If the player is coming in to deliver an appropriate hit and the receiving player twists and turns to avoid, or to draw a call, it can't be a major in my opinion.

So, I agree, may have rushed this a bit.

[D6Rocks]

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

As I posted in the other thread, what "major" rule changes have happened? How much is this truly going to change the game? The point of a penalty is to discourage some action or incident from happening, doesn't it make sense to have the most dangerous infractions penalized more harshly to reduce the rate they occur? If the coaches/players don't want to spend 5 minutes short-handed there's a pretty simple solution.

I agree with your point about those deliberately trying to draw a penalty.

No Rules were changed.
The consequences for breaking the rules changed.
The ref's were told to call the game, using the rules that were already in place. (which after 13's injury, they did not change one bit.)

Now the ref's have one less choice in calling a hit from behind something else. they can't just call it boarding, because that's 5min now too.
I don't know why anyone would have a problem with greater consequences for dangerous play. Hits to the head and back should not be tollerated. I'm going to squeeze a couple games in tonight, parts of a couple, we'll see if anything changes.

I for one hope it does.

[seek & destroy]

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

As I posted in the other thread, what "major" rule changes have happened? How much is this truly going to change the game? The point of a penalty is to discourage some action or incident from happening, doesn't it make sense to have the most dangerous infractions penalized more harshly to reduce the rate they occur? If the coaches/players don't want to spend 5 minutes short-handed there's a pretty simple solution.

I agree with your point about those deliberately trying to draw a penalty.

The original post stated that:
In 33 box scores there were 38 MAJOR PENALTIES (Checking from Behind, Boarding, Illegal Check to the Head)

That is a major change. I'm guessing that at least a few of these were not dirty/nasty hits but simply had to be called a 'major' because the new rules do not allow the ref the discretion to make a different call. It will have the desired effect that they want of causing players to be extra careful around the boards but I just think they could have waited a while and seen if encouraging the refs to make closer calls along with the heightened awareness would have taken care of the problem.

In my opinion, rule changes should be more thought out and deliberated.

[SPUDNUT]

Intersting to call them game changers.

Assuming that the refs would have called the penalty under any circumstance:
1. Did the PP team score more than one goal on the major?
2. Did they score the goal after the 2 minutes would have expired?

I do not think the scoring is the indicator of whether this is a good ruling or not.

Not my point. I was responding to another poster who wondered whether tougher enforcement of the new rules had changed the outcome of any games on the 17th. I think you can say that it did and will continue to, esp. when you compare the stats from 30 December, and BTW that's absolutely a good thing. When your team loses as a direct result of an illegal check, that ought to change your behavior next game (whether you're a coach, a parent, or a player).

Comparing the numbers from two nites of hockey hardly justifies drawing conclusions of any kind on any subject !

[HawkeyPower]

Major rule changes should not happen as a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

Given their quick decision to institute new rules, I hope that they will also consider making a 5 minute major out of "acting" or deliberately trying to draw a penalty. Too many players have learned that ducking or turning just before the hit and then laying a bit on the ice can increase the likelihood of drawing a penalty. One minute later, they are back on the ice like nothing happened. Up until the tragedy, most never thought they could actually get injured. Now they will second guess doing it as much because they can see that the little duck or turn move can be more dangerous than just taking the hit.

As I posted in the other thread, what "major" rule changes have happened? How much is this truly going to change the game? The point of a penalty is to discourage some action or incident from happening, doesn't it make sense to have the most dangerous infractions penalized more harshly to reduce the rate they occur? If the coaches/players don't want to spend 5 minutes short-handed there's a pretty simple solution.

I agree with your point about those deliberately trying to draw a penalty.

The original post stated that:
In 33 box scores there were 38 MAJOR PENALTIES (Checking from Behind, Boarding, Illegal Check to the Head)

That is a major change. I'm guessing that at least a few of these were not dirty/nasty hits but simply had to be called a 'major' because the new rules do not allow the ref the discretion to make a different call. It will have the desired effect that they want of causing players to be extra careful around the boards but I just think they could have waited a while and seen if encouraging the refs to make closer calls along with the heightened awareness would have taken care of the problem.

In my opinion, rule changes should be more thought out and deliberated.[/quote

Maybe they have been just calling the rules the way they should be. They could have been told not to just call a cross check and give the kid 2 mins. Instead by calling the infractions what they are the number is higher the last couple nights. If they would enforce the rules we have on the books this wouldn't have been an issue.
And someone keeps saying remove the facemask? Pucks and sticks to the face make perfect sense.

[Shinbone_News]

Comparing the numbers from two nites of hockey hardly justifies drawing conclusions of any kind on any subject !

Oh whatever.

Compare as many nights (or seasons, for that matter) as you like. It doesn't take a spudnut to see that the rule change has been implemented and mobilized by the reffing corps, and that it may be changing games if not behavior. That's all the thread was originally about.

Don't get your undies in a bunch, spud.

[BBgunner]

33 boxscores 38 major penalties....

Take a week prior to the rule change and add up boxscores and checks from behind, boarding and head contact penalties and I bet the numbers equal out. No actual rules changed here and that is why the change was fast and approved. The fundamental structure of the game and game play is still the same. The penalties time puts more responsiblity on player and coach not to hurt the team by doing something that always has been and always will be a penalty and a serious one at that. Is it the referee's fault that player A will not play by the rules that he has had for the last 8 years? If that player has not learned by HS that he needs to check from the front and not make contact to the head then he is either Stubborn or poorly coached.

[SPUDNUT]

Comparing the numbers from two nites of hockey hardly justifies drawing conclusions of any kind on any subject !

Oh whatever.

Compare as many nights (or seasons, for that matter) as you like. It doesn't take a spudnut to see that the rule change has been implemented and mobilized by the reffing corps, and that it may be changing games if not behavior. That's all the thread was originally about.

Don't get your undies in a bunch, spud.

Now that was brilliant !

Was just commenting to the intelligent posters on here that it usually doesn't produce good results when a rush to judgment is made.

Don't worry - you're off the hook since that list doesn't include you.

[BadgerBob82]

As predicted, "diving" "embellishment" or whatever you want to call it has entered the game.

I suggest a 5 minute MAJOR be added to the rule changes for deliberate attempts to draw these new major penalties.

Before anybody attacks this. I witnessed 5 obvious dives. The referees only called one 5+10 check from behind out of the 5 dives. One time the ref even chuckled and shook his head to say NO WAY on a really poor attempted dive.

If these new major penalties were put in place to CHANGE BEHAVIOR. Then adding a major for FAKE DIVING will change that behavior also. The way the kids are turning and standing near the boards waiting to feel a defender from behind, then launching themself into the boards is in fact very dangerous!

[SPUDNUT]

As predicted, "diving" "embellishment" or whatever you want to call it has entered the game.

I suggest a 5 minute MAJOR be added to the rule changes for deliberate attempts to draw these new major penalties.

Before anybody attacks this. I witnessed 5 obvious dives. The referees only called one 5+10 check from behind out of the 5 dives. One time the ref even chuckled and shook his head to say NO WAY on a really poor attempted dive.

If these new major penalties were put in place to CHANGE BEHAVIOR. Then adding a major for FAKE DIVING will change that behavior also. The way the kids are turning and standing near the boards waiting to feel a defender from behind, then launching themself into the boards is in fact very dangerous!

Ditto !