HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

-I didn't say physical play was bad, in fact the opposite. Doing things against the rules are.

-Sure, one game, or ten games. Or however many you and I both attend regularly. Our games (basketball, hockey and football) aren't called by the rules from the youth level to the professional level. Attend any of the above (maybe not MN hs hockey as much anymore) and you will see many rules being ignored. From traveling and offsides to more violent penalties that have come to be second nature in our games.

-Not sure about the meeting, nor do I think there was this "big meeting," I'm simply relating what was in articles that have been written.
People are making this out to be like there had been no discussion about injuries in the past, one person got hurt so they decided to make a change. Far from the truth. People in the community (including on this board) have been discussing injuries for a while now and this injury showed the MSHSL they needed to stop waiting to make change they've been thinking of making.

Do you really think that if the question "who wants doesn't want to make a change that will reduce the chance for serious injury?" were asked any hands would go up from coaches or refs?

Yes, you and i seem to agree on one thing: enforce the rules. That's all that needed to be done, rather than making "fixes" without facts to back them up. i believe an "enforce the rules" mandate in the wake of the injury would have been a wiser and more tempered approach. then, if the new-found heightened concern for player safety still wasn't addressed, then more aggressive steps could be pursued. too bad that patience and wisdom weren't applied.

in the meantime, players at this early stage in the "new" version of HS hockey will play with a tentativeness that i have so far seen in the past week.

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. i suspect it would make the game safer and leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations. why not that fix in the name of safety?

GoldenBear wrote:Sorry Hound Fans....this is the only thing that could stop DE from winning state....Randolph, good luck; 5 minute power plays neutralize talent. Hope I'm wrong but have a hunch this will be interesting. GB

What a ridiculous statement, it goes both ways and will hurt DE opponents as well...

nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play,
http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind

Sorry dude, but that was a clear check from behind and if you pause that video when the player first turns his back the defensemen is still 5 feet away and has plenty of time to pull off the check...congrats to the refs for enforcing a dangerous check.

almostashappy wrote:

karl(east) wrote: This is a tiny sample size, but I've seen the major+game DQ assessed twice so far: once to an East player who is a definite D1 prospect; he is neither big nor much-penaltized. While channel-surfing between periods during the Edina-Tonka game last night, I saw a penalty assessed to a D1-committed Eagan player. So yes, they are nailing some high-profile players.

The 5-minute major given to the Eagan kid didn't have a game DQ attached to it.

Would have been even more egregious if it did, since the boarding call was made on a hip check to a player skating down the boards with the puck. The "victim's" head didn't hit the glass...he hardly broke stride. Would have been an iffy 2-minute boarding call a week ago. But it was called in the first period...got the statement made early to the players and coaches.

Ok, I am going to assume you had a bad angle to the penalty called because I was at the game and it happened right in front of me and it was as clear a boarding penalty as there is and yes the players head did hit the boards. I called it out a five minute major before even the ref raised his arm. I am a huge Eagan fan and even I will admit #14 deserved the call. Good job refs. Keep the game safe.

HappyHockeyFan wrote:

nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play,
http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind

Sorry dude, but that was a clear check from behind and if you pause that video when the player first turns his back the defensemen is still 5 feet away and has plenty of time to pull off the check...congrats to the refs for enforcing a dangerous check.

A dangerous check! haha thats funny

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:

HappyHockeyFan wrote:

nofinish wrote:Wayzata vs Osseo. I am guessing this is the check from behind you are referring to. Open ice check, offensive player turned at last moment so knew defender was there. Last week this was no call now it is major plus misconduct? Luckily this penalty didn't result in a power play goal.
Here is link to video of the play,
http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... rom-Behind

Sorry dude, but that was a clear check from behind and if you pause that video when the player first turns his back the defensemen is still 5 feet away and has plenty of time to pull off the check...congrats to the refs for enforcing a dangerous check.

A dangerous check! haha thats funny

Agreed...this is NOT a dangerous check. It is more of a hard push - the player searching for the puck doesn't look real sure on his feet - the player falls harder because of being unsure on his feet - refs make the call because he falls hard. 5 minute major is a horrible call.

HappyHockeyFan wrote:Ok, I am going to assume you had a bad angle to the penalty called because I was at the game and it happened right in front of me and it was as clear a boarding penalty as there is and yes the players head did hit the boards. I called it out a five minute major before even the ref raised his arm. I am a huge Eagan fan and even I will admit #14 deserved the call. Good job refs. Keep the game safe.

Well, like I wrote a couple of pages upthread, sightlines aren't always as clear as how certain rules are written.

I called it out as a 5-min as well, but only because of the way things are getting called this week. But I defer to your evidently superior vantage point.

Let me ask that defenders of the MSHSL response again:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. it seems almost certain that it would make the game safer for boys -- and this is our paramount interest, we are being told -- and "girls" rules would leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations.

why not that fix in the name of safety?

early observations, about 8 games

Early in the game a major is called.
Later in the game that same type of incident is not called a penalty.
Head contact is not called as much as before. Perhaps because of the severity of the penalty. Which is more? Major or allow it?

rudy wrote:Let me ask that defenders of the MSHSL response again:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Simple answer: because boys are different than girls! And I'm probably in the minority here - I really like girls/womens hockey when it's played at a high level.

That said, I completely agree with the stiffer penalties now in place for high school boys hockey. They are now more in line with the way D1 hockey has been officiated the past couple of years. High school hockey has been slow to catch up to the college game; it's a real shame that it took such a serious injury to change things.

rudy wrote:Let me ask that defenders of the MSHSL response again:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. it seems almost certain that it would make the game safer for boys -- and this is our paramount interest, we are being told -- and "girls" rules would leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations.

why not that fix in the name of safety?

Its people like you that really make me nervous.... yikes

I'd like to hear comments on this: last night at a game the team with the puck parked their big guy in front of the net. The defenseman is bumping and pushing him (you see this every game), the d pushes a bit too hard from behind and the big guy falls down. Last year this would have cross checking or interference. Last night it was 'check from behind' 5 and 10.
I can't see how this can be within the intent of the rule. There was no danger of injury.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

rudy wrote:Let me ask that defenders of the MSHSL response again:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Simple answer: because boys are different than girls! And I'm probably in the minority here - I really like girls/womens hockey when it's played at a high level.

That said, I completely agree with the stiffer penalties now in place for high school boys hockey. They are now more in line with the way D1 hockey has been officiated the past couple of years. High school hockey has been slow to catch up to the college game; it's a real shame that it took such a serious injury to change things.

I agree that they have done a better job of calling the check from behind, but can't remember a major penalty for contact to the head or boarding.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

rudy wrote:Let me ask that defenders of the MSHSL response again:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Simple answer: because boys are different than girls! And I'm probably in the minority here - I really like girls/womens hockey when it's played at a high level.

That said, I completely agree with the stiffer penalties now in place for high school boys hockey. They are now more in line with the way D1 hockey has been officiated the past couple of years. High school hockey has been slow to catch up to the college game; it's a real shame that it took such a serious injury to change things.

Yes, boys are different than girls. They are by nature rougher, bigger and stronger. But i think those differences only add to the perils that the human brain faces on the rink. So, if anything, boys need MORE protection on the ice than girls. So, back to my original question for the defenders of the MSHSL "fixes":

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Top players that were contimplating leaving after their junior year to play else where in preparation for college I believe will now leave and I do not blame them.

1) Why would you risk a four game suspension your senior year (almost 25% of the games) when you are trying to earn a scholarship. Coaches and Administrators had rules in the past that many times had harsher penalties than the High School League (as most coaches did not tolerate thugs and repeat offenders). Now what do they do, suspend the kid for life for an arbitrary call that has no option for review?

2) Good/skilled players are being lumped in (did you watch yeasterdays games?) They are not thugs and rarely were in the past (we had a rule for intent to injure.....Remember!)

3) Games have lost energy as players, coaches and officials are swimming in the dark trying to navigate and has paralyzed the game. They are all playing afraid. All of them.

4) Refs have been put in a no win situation, would you want to be one of them now. My son has quit refing.

5) Kids that are not on Special Teams now really never see the ice as the game is only PP or PK. The games for them are now sit on the bench and watch. They have turned the game into a 1.5 to 2 line hockey game.

Guess what teams are only working on now at practice (and how to draw the penalties).

6) Announcers on TV and Radio both were struggling with calls, but you could tell they were being told to tow the line even though you could tell the 100% support was not there.

Minnesota was one of the final states where HS Hockey was relevant and good players wanted to stay with their communities instead of AAA, Juniors, etc.

Trust me Wisconsin HS Hockey is glad to see us come back to the pack.

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:Is it just me or does anybody find it troubling that the MSHSL can basically do whatever it wants? Why can't we have the coaches sign off on something like this??? It is a MAJOR change that should not just be made quickly with no approval.

Taking checking out of Peewee hockey, and now this drastic rule change is making the case more and more to me everyday, the hockey world has lost its mind. They are probably soon going to ban fighting in the NHL and more and more injuries will result of these actions!!!

Why can't people understand that point? You make these kind of rules it sends the message to the players "you will NOT get hit dangerously, so don't worry about getting hurt and do NOT protect yourself."

Instead, we should the message of "Hockey is dangerous, you will get punished for stupid, dangerous hits, but at the same time you NEED to protect yourself."

Hockey legends and greats are turning over in their graves today, and it is a sad, sad day for the state of hockey in Minnesota.

Coaches job to teach the kids the rules if coaches can't teach to protect yourself at all times....You shouldn't be coaching

Bronc wrote:Top players that were contimplating leaving after their junior year to play else where in preparation for college I believe will now leave and I do not blame them.

1) Why would you risk a four game suspension your senior year (almost 25% of the games) when you are trying to earn a scholarship. Coaches and Administrators had rules in the past that many times had harsher penalties than the High School League (as most coaches did not tolerate thugs and repeat offenders). Now what do they do, suspend the kid for life for an arbitrary call that has no option for review?

2) Good/skilled players are being lumped in (did you watch yeasterdays games?) They are not thugs and rarely were in the past (we had a rule for intent to injure.....Remember!)

3) Games have lost energy as players, coaches and officials are swimming in the dark trying to navigate and has paralyzed the game. They are all playing afraid. All of them.

4) Refs have been put in a no win situation, would you want to be one of them now. My son has quit refing.

5) Kids that are not on Special Teams now really never see the ice as the game is only PP or PK. The games for them are now sit on the bench and watch. They have turned the game into a 1.5 to 2 line hockey game.

Guess what teams are only working on now at practice (and how to draw the penalties).

6) Announcers on TV and Radio both were struggling with calls, but you could tell they were being told to tow the line even though you could tell the 100% support was not there.

Minnesota was one of the final states where HS Hockey was relevant and good players wanted to stay with their communities instead of AAA, Juniors, etc.

Trust me Wisconsin HS Hockey is glad to see us come back to the pack.

This is one of the best explanations for where things stand now. Everyone should read it -- twice.

Video Guy wrote:

Oldtimehockeyguy23 wrote:Is it just me or does anybody find it troubling that the MSHSL can basically do whatever it wants? Why can't we have the coaches sign off on something like this??? It is a MAJOR change that should not just be made quickly with no approval.

Taking checking out of Peewee hockey, and now this drastic rule change is making the case more and more to me everyday, the hockey world has lost its mind. They are probably soon going to ban fighting in the NHL and more and more injuries will result of these actions!!!

Why can't people understand that point? You make these kind of rules it sends the message to the players "you will NOT get hit dangerously, so don't worry about getting hurt and do NOT protect yourself."

Instead, we should the message of "Hockey is dangerous, you will get punished for stupid, dangerous hits, but at the same time you NEED to protect yourself."

Hockey legends and greats are turning over in their graves today, and it is a sad, sad day for the state of hockey in Minnesota.

Coaches job to teach the kids the rules if coaches can't teach to protect yourself at all times....You shouldn't be coaching

Please elaborate on this comment.

A lot of eyes have gone over this thread and still no reason given for the following, which i posted her over the weekend:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. it seems almost certain that it would make the game safer for boys -- and this is our paramount interest, we are being told -- and "girls" rules would leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations.

why not that fix in the name of safety?

Star Tribune reporter ML Smith wants to hear from people tonight who don't like the revisions in the penalties.

Contact her at marylynn.smith@startribune.com.

rudy wrote:A lot of eyes have gone over this thread and still no reason given for the following, which i posted her over the weekend:

why should boys hockey not be subjected to the same checking restrictions as girls hockey?

Given that girls are allowed to "rub out" for puck control and have "incidental contact," i dont know why changing boys to those rules isnt being pursued. it seems almost certain that it would make the game safer for boys -- and this is our paramount interest, we are being told -- and "girls" rules would leave the contact strictly to puck possession situations.

why not that fix in the name of safety?

Girls and boys hockey are not the same. Have you watched a UofM vs. UND college men's hockey game? I'm all for keeping players safe with rules about boarding and checking from behind INTO the boards, but do you really think colleges are going to recruit boys/men to play hockey for their MEN'S programs who haven't played full contact hockey? I know Jake Jablonski's injury is a tragedy, and I feel sick about it, but the sad fact is as long as boys and men play physical contact sports, boys and men will be injured (unfortunately, some severely). Should we do EVERYTHING possible to make youth sports safer? Absolutely. At the expense of completely re-defining what sport they're playing? I'm not so sure. Every parent and player has to evaluate the risk/reward of participation in contact sports like these. If parents/kids aren't willing to take the risk of participation in contact youth sports, that's definitely their prerogative. If they are, they need to understand the inherent risks of the activities in which they are enrolling their children. IMHO

What I am most concerned about is consistent calls. Agree or not, the prior link to video was called a 5 & 10. I don't personally agree, but will point to STA vs. Breck from Saturday. The link below shows a clear check from behind after the whistle. STA picked up a 2 minute rough.

http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... ed-a-Rough

MyFOXHockey wrote:What I am most concerned about is consistent calls. Agree or not, the prior link to video was called a 5 & 10. I don't personally agree, but will point to STA vs. Breck from Saturday. The link below shows a clear check from behind after the whistle. STA picked up a 2 minute rough.

http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... ed-a-Rough

I find this one very disturbing given the current circumstances. This is a perfect example of what should be a 5 and a game. Blatant with intent and after the whistle. The Breck player never saw it coming. No excuse for the hit and no excuse for calling a rough on that in my opinion.

PuckRanger wrote:

MyFOXHockey wrote:What I am most concerned about is consistent calls. Agree or not, the prior link to video was called a 5 & 10. I don't personally agree, but will point to STA vs. Breck from Saturday. The link below shows a clear check from behind after the whistle. STA picked up a 2 minute rough.

http://www.foxpreps.com/dpp/video_archi ... ed-a-Rough

I find this one very disturbing given the current circumstances. This is a perfect example of what should be a 5 and a game. Blatant with intent and after the whistle. The Breck player never saw it coming. No excuse for the hit and no excuse for calling a rough on that in my opinion.

what about the captian of STA defending his cheap shot teammate aren't captians supose to lead their team in sportsmanship