HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

the_juiceman wrote:

skiumah wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote: Player B2 should, at a minimum, get a 2 minute interference penalty because A2 was not in possession of the puck.

Completely agree with you calling it interference. I'm trying to think of other examples of an unsuspecting and vulnerable situation.

A neutral ice pass from D to F...forward has his head turned looking for the pass...opponent steps up, times his check perfectly, and separates the forward from the puck. Text book check, not a violent hit, but one that knocks the player to the ice.

Seems like the forward is both vulnerable and unsuspecting, in that situation. Make that call and the coach complains that it was a legal body check. After all, it was the D put his own forward in a vulnerable position. Don't make that call, and the other coach complains that his player was both vulnerable and unsuspecting. Which is a true statement. Yikes...

shouldn't you always be expecting a hit went you have possession of the puck, or about to be in possession on the puck?

Nuts&Bolts wrote:As for unsuspecting hits let's go back to the pre-1960s when checking was only legal in the defensive zone.

skiumah wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote: A neutral ice pass from D to F...forward has his head turned looking for the pass...opponent steps up, times his check perfectly, and separates the forward from the puck. Text book check, not a violent hit, but one that knocks the player to the ice.

Seems like the forward is both vulnerable and unsuspecting, in that situation. Make that call and the coach complains that it was a legal body check. After all, it was the D put his own forward in a vulnerable position. Don't make that call, and the other coach complains that his player was both vulnerable and unsuspecting. Which is a true statement. Yikes...

The new lacrosse rules cite as an example of an illegal check "body-checking a player whose head is turned away to receive a pass, even if that player turns toward the contact immediately before the body-check."

Since it's the National Federation of State High School Associations that leaned on their hockey and lacrosse rules committees to make these changes, I can imagine that they might be inclined to call it a penalty in either sport.

Nuts&Bolts wrote:Sorry Juice but after all this "bored" does involve some pot stirring. I gotta believe with the equipment today that the fitting of a goalies catching glove and external strap should keep the glove in place if the player wants it to stay in place. As for unsuspecting hits let's go back to the pre-1960s when checking was only legal in the defensive zone.

Simpleton wrote:Bottom line for me:
- I'm ok with any call: from behind; in a dangerous position along the boards; initiating with the stick; to the head; on a man without the puck except if you're locked on and pushing him (ie. clearing the crease)
- those things said, if you have the puck in the open ice I think you're fair game from the side or front provided one of the aforementioned isn't committed...even if you're vulnerable and/or unsuspecting

MNHockeyFan wrote:

Simpleton wrote:Bottom line for me:
- I'm ok with any call: from behind; in a dangerous position along the boards; initiating with the stick; to the head; on a man without the puck except if you're locked on and pushing him (ie. clearing the crease)
- those things said, if you have the puck in the open ice I think you're fair game from the side or front provided one of the aforementioned isn't committed...even if you're vulnerable and/or unsuspecting

In other words, leave the rules unchanged, but it appears that's not going to happen. It will be interesting to see how strictly the new "vulnerable and/or unsuspecting" rule is enforced.