Refs

[Ref22]

So what happens or should happen when the ref calls a player for a penalty that was just getting on the ice, not even playing when the whistle was blown? I know right? Twice in one game this summer.

You mean the ref enforced the penalty on the wrong player? Nothing, unless the other ref is able to help him identify the right player. This wouldn't happen unless there was massive conflict coming from the benches.

[Ref22]

fire away

[InigoMontoya]

What happens when a goalie doesn't quite make it to the bench before the 6th skater leaves? (And in general, why is that treated any differently than a skater-for-skater substitution?)

[Bleed Maroon and Gold]

[quote="InigoMontoya"]What happens when a goalie doesn't quite make it to the bench before the 6th skater leaves? (And in general, why is that treated any differently than a skater-for-skater substitution?)[/quote]

If the player leaves the bench before the 6th skater takes the ice the play is blown dead and I believe the face off comes back to center ice or that is what has happened when I have seen it blown dead in the past.

[the_juiceman]

What happens when a goalie doesn't quite make it to the bench before the 6th skater leaves? (And in general, why is that treated any differently than a skater-for-skater substitution?)

goalie must be on bench before player hits the ice...if not play is blown dead and goalie must return to the net.

[Ref22]

Indeed Montoya.

[CommunityBased]

Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.

[Ref22]

Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.

Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?

[The Next One]

Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.

Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?

Why inexperienced?...sounds like the right call....u can't slash d or f before the whistle so why should the goalie be any different?....puck is lose whack away...puck is covered get out of there

[CommunityBased]

Reff22, the ref was older (30-40 year old). No nonsense guy. Like I said haven't seen it called that way since. He called it by the book not the "unwritten" book.

I feel for refs given there is so much judgement left to the refs. I wish it was more cut and dry. Example charging rule 42.1:

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

Anyone feel this is enforced by the book? What is distance traveled?[/b]

[SCBlueLiner]

I've seen this. A few weeks ago the ref came to the bench and told the players to not defend the goalie when the puck is covered as he will take charge of blowing the whistle and will call slashing if the opposing forwards get too aggressive. The guy had demonstrated he was a good ref so we trusted he'd do his job, but also made it a point to tell him we'll instruct our defenseman to back off but he needs to make sure the whistles are quick when the puck is covered. We didn't want to leave the goalie unprotected with the forwards having a chance to jam the puck loose and get a cheap goal on what should have been a whistle.

He did his job and we had no issues. The refs were a couple of college kids that still played club at the local college. They did a fantastic job, way better than the more senior ref at the same tournament who called every tic tac thing you could think of. Really disrupted the flow of the game. I actually felt bad for the other team who took more penalties than we did in the games he reffed.

[57special]

I don't know what constitutes Boarding right now. It seems to me that it is called if the person being hit falls into the boards rather than stays upright or semi upright? I am seeing it called in some games and not in others.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about hitting from behind, targeting the head, or charging (too many steps) into the boards, but a shoulder to shoulder hit where the person being hit contacts the boards. Since this is a 2 and 10 penalty I sure wish that there was more consistency on this one.

[QuackerTracker]

Reff22, the ref was older (30-40 year old). No nonsense guy. Like I said haven't seen it called that way since. He called it by the book not the "unwritten" book.

I feel for refs given there is so much judgement left to the refs. I wish it was more cut and dry. Example charging rule 42.1:

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

Anyone feel this is enforced by the book? What is distance traveled?[/b]

From the USA Hockey Preface:

CHARGING
A player cannot take more than two fast strides or travel an
excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the
purpose of punishing the opponent. Examples include:
• Running or jumping into the opponent to deliver a check.
• Accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing
the opponent.
• Skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a
check with excessive force.

[QuackerTracker]

I don't know what constitutes Boarding right now. It seems to me that it is called if the person being hit falls into the boards rather than stays upright or semi upright? I am seeing it called in some games and not in others.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about hitting from behind, targeting the head, or charging (too many steps) into the boards, but a shoulder to shoulder hit where the person being hit contacts the boards. Since this is a 2 and 10 penalty I sure wish that there was more consistency on this one.

Rule 603 Boarding
(a) A minor plus a misconduct or major plus game misconduct
penalty shall be assessed to any player who commits any
action that causes an opponent to be thrown violently into
the boards.
“Rolling” an opponent along the boards where he is
attempting to go through too small an opening is not
considered boarding.
(b) A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be
assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of
boarding.
(c) A match penalty for attempt to injure or deliberate injury to
an opponent may also be assessed for boarding.


The part I put in bold should answer your question. ANY action that causes a player to be thrown violently in the boards. The key word is ANY. Therefore a shoulder to shoulder check throwing a player violently into the boards should be considered boarding. Furthermore this is from the casebook:

Situation 2
What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to
be “thrown” violently into the boards?

For USA Hockey youth games, the onus is on the player
delivering the check to do so in a manner that does not place
the opponent in danger. Rule Reference 603(a).

The purpose of a body check is to separate the opponent from
the puck. Anytime a player delivers a check for the purpose of
intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes
the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards, a
boarding penalty must be assessed.

The degree of force with the boards is certainly subject to
discretion and a more practical question may be “was the
check necessary and/or what was the vulnerability of the
player being checked”? For example, a boarding penalty may
be assessed when a player was not necessarily hit that hard,
but was in a vulnerable position when unnecessarily hit with
a degree of force that caused them to be thrown into the
boards excessively.

In contrast, a penalty may not be warranted when a player is
hit much harder, but his preparedness for the hit causes him
to go only mildly into the boards.

USA Hockey is not eliminating a good, hard and clean check.
However, players must be aware of the situation when
delivering a check and then held accountable for taking
“liberties” and therefore endangering an opponent.[/u][/i]

[QuackerTracker]

USA Hockey ask the official (this is a great place to learn and if you submit a question get answers from USA Hockey):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/8983 ... e-official


USA Hockey Clip of the Week (these videos are good and talk about rules in depth):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/9874 ... f-the-week

[nofinish]

Quack:
Thanks for the boarding rule definition. I saw a check the other night that fit perfectly the "Rolling" definition. Defenseman angled puck carrier into boards and checked him along boards using his hip/mid section. Player who got checked fell over but got right back up. Defenseman was given a 2 plus 10 boarding penalty I assume because it made a lot of noise along the boards. USA hockey claims to be not taking away clean, hard legal checks but some refs seem to be.

[Ref22]

USA Hockey ask the official (this is a great place to learn and if you submit a question get answers from USA Hockey):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/8983 ... e-official


USA Hockey Clip of the Week (these videos are good and talk about rules in depth):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/9874 ... f-the-week

Agreed. Although this thread may be more in depth than those resources it never hurts to get an answer straight from USA hockey.

[Ref22]

USA Hockey ask the official (this is a great place to learn and if you submit a question get answers from USA Hockey):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/8983 ... e-official


USA Hockey Clip of the Week (these videos are good and talk about rules in depth):

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/9874 ... f-the-week

Agreed. Although this thread may be more in depth than those resources it never hurts to get an answer straight from USA hockey.

[57special]

Quack:
Thanks for the boarding rule definition. I saw a check the other night that fit perfectly the "Rolling" definition. Defenseman angled puck carrier into boards and checked him along boards using his hip/mid section. Player who got checked fell over but got right back up. Defenseman was given a 2 plus 10 boarding penalty I assume because it made a lot of noise along the boards. USA hockey claims to be not taking away clean, hard legal checks but some refs seem to be.

These are the calls that drive me crazy. What's a defender to do, use harsh language? Kids are steaming down the outside at full speed... A timid rub out just isn't realistic in many cases. I wonder if hockey is heading to a point where they will be a no check zone delineated on the ice all around the boards. Would take the guesswork out of things.

In any event, boarding calls are now WAY up over what they were 4 years ago. Back then there would've been no calls, let alone a 2 and 10. Again, I'm not talking about those ugly, hits from behind into the boards. I have no patience with those, and have no problem penalizing those hits heavily.

[Westernsaddle]

Question:

A team is playing another team that is notorious for playing a very "goon" style of hockey. During a period a kid from the goon team runs a kid from behind and gets called for boarding and thrown from the game. The kid was hurt and did not play the rest of the game. About 6 minutes later, another kid from goon team runs another kid and after a shot to the head knocks him out. Goon kid gets thrown from the game. Kid ends up in ER. As the second kid is laying on the ice with emt, another kid from goon team skates by and yells "that's how we play hockey up here," as if he is proud of that style of play. It is not a physical style of play in that it is the cheap shots causing the injuries and not the physical part of play. The team is well known for this style of play. What do you do? Do you contact the district? Do you contact the association (assuming they are aware of it-last year we had a player on tape from goon team give a player from our team a "door man shot" when he didn't think ref was looking. Ref was and he got tossed from game). Do you do nothing and shrug your shoulders? It certainly is a part of the culture of this team and it never seems to get addressed. Any thoughts Ref?

[Ref22]

Question:

A team is playing another team that is notorious for playing a very "goon" style of hockey. During a period a kid from the goon team runs a kid from behind and gets called for boarding and thrown from the game. The kid was hurt and did not play the rest of the game. About 6 minutes later, another kid from goon team runs another kid and after a shot to the head knocks him out. Goon kid gets thrown from the game. Kid ends up in ER. As the second kid is laying on the ice with emt, another kid from goon team skates by and yells "that's how we play hockey up here," as if he is proud of that style of play. It is not a physical style of play in that it is the cheap shots causing the injuries and not the physical part of play. The team is well known for this style of play. What do you do? Do you contact the district? Do you contact the association (assuming they are aware of it-last year we had a player on tape from goon team give a player from our team a "door man shot" when he didn't think ref was looking. Ref was and he got tossed from game). Do you do nothing and shrug your shoulders? It certainly is a part of the culture of this team and it never seems to get addressed. Any thoughts Ref?

Not that it really matters in this case but what level is this? Bantam? If they have a reputation for gooning it up odds are that someone has already complained to the district. Wouldn't hurt to have someone contact your district and/or MN hockey if you fear for your children's safety with their reckless play and these reports of hospitalizing players is true. It's a refs job to keep the game safe and ejecting a player for a hit usually stops any suspect play right away as no one wants to get tossed. Sounds like maybe their coach needs to be suspended. Three majors in a game is an automatic suspension for the head coach. Some districts are even stricter. If you're not the coach or an association board member have them write the letter to the district.

[bestpopcorn]

Wondering how you handle parent complaints?

I have never been a ref, but I was tournament director years ago, and as such I got complaints regarding the refs.

I eventually quit dealing with parents. I decided I would only deal with coaches. I would tell the parent that if there was a complaint please have the coach find me. This invariably led to much eye rolling on the part of the parent. I don't remember ever being approached by a coach.

I have a strong feeling that 90% of the complaints come from 10% of the parents.

[Ref22]

Wondering how you handle parent complaints?

I have never been a ref, but I was tournament director years ago, and as such I got complaints regarding the refs.

I eventually quit dealing with parents. I decided I would only deal with coaches. I would tell the parent that if there was a complaint please have the coach find me. This invariably led to much eye rolling on the part of the parent. I don't remember ever being approached by a coach.

I have a strong feeling that 90% of the complaints come from 10% of the parents.

I don't interact with the parents at all. I usually am at the arena before the parents arrive so no issues there, during the game I tune them out (warn the coach if needed. Some rinks you literally cannot tune out a crazy parent) and after games go out a different exit with my partner depending on the intensity of the game, crowd, etc.

[Westernsaddle]

Thanks ref. it was bantams.

[Duluthguy]

Two years ago I coached a Squirt team playing in an Andover tournament and was taught a good lesson. We teach our kids "play to the whistle". Ref comes over and warns both benches if you whack the goalie covering the puck even before the whistle it is slashing...he called it that way and guess what...no scrums, no protect your goalie crap necessary.

At first I was a bit angry as it was different but the more I thought about it he is right...it is slashing...and we could clean up all the BS in front of the net if we just called slashing on the goalie.

Haven't seen it called since. Only calls for retaliating i.e. protecting your goalie.

Sounds like a younger, inexperienced ref?

Why inexperienced?...sounds like the right call....u can't slash d or f before the whistle so why should the goalie be any different?....puck is lose whack away...puck is covered get out of there

Ref22: Thanks for participating in this discussion. It's helpful to most of us who aren't trained to be officials and may not know the rules as they differ between levels (youth, high school, college, pros, etc.)

I'd like to hear your response to the situation above regarding slashing the goalie. The questions appear rhetorical in nature, but I think legitimate to ask: Why did you think the ref in the scenario was inexperienced, and why are goaltenders treated differently than skaters in terms of being slashed? I've seen goalies slashed when covering the puck--or attempting to--but never seen it called. Is there something in the book that allows an opposing player to slash the goalie when he (the attacking player) is attempting to play the puck?

And yes, I'm a goalie parent!

Thanks!