Below are the MHSL rules for interpreting legal and illegal (checking) body contact in girl’s hockey. I would like to hear opinions on this subject.
“Understanding Body Contact in Girls Hockey”
Body contact is a feature of the girls' game. Intentional body checking is not. Body checking occurs when a defensive player's objective is to gain possession of the puck by separating the puck carrier from the puck with a body check. Body contact which occurs when players are attempting to play the puck is permissible regardless of the degree of the contact or any size or skill differential between the players. Intent to separate the puck carrier from the puck with a body check is the primary differentiating factor between allowable body contact and illegal body checking.
Body contact occurring during the following scenarios are all examples of permissible body contact:
The defensive player establishing a position along the boards such that the puck carrier runs out of the room (angling).
When opposing players, in an attempt to play the puck have established body position and a lane to the puck, and collide upon reaching the puck.
A defensive player, while skating in the same direction as the puck carrier, legally holds a position on the ice to block and stop the forward progress of the puck carrier. This is contrary to stepping up and into the puck carrier from the opposite direction, which is an illegal body check.
When opposing players unintentionally turn into each other as they are skating to different positions on the rink
Checking in girls hockey
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Can't Never Tried
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 pm
-
Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:49 pm
CNT....yes they do get called when in fact they do not "appear" to be anything other than the "strong" surviving body contact between two players.Can't Never Tried wrote:I think it would be very difficult to officiate consistantly.
Contact is contact, and I'll bet a lot of those collision contacts that shouldn't be penalties get call as such. JMO
My daughter wishes there was checking in girls hockey....however, I must admit, that same daughter doesn't enjoy the contact when she plays on her brothers bantam team...
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
I think the intent of the rules is pretty clear. It's the inconsistency of how individual referees interpret them and how they see the play that can create problems.
A good example is the fine line between "angling" (OK) and "rubbing out" (not always OK) when the defensive player is skating towards the puck carrier who's moving up along the boards. Most refs will let rubbing out go as long as the defensive player doesn't make that "little extra" push with the shoulder or arm in establishing position to retrive or take away the puck, and in the process she squeezes the other player out. As long as the defensive player is going for the puck and doesn't have the intent to primarily hit the player into the boards, most refs will let it go. On the other hand I've seen the defensive player get called even when I thought the girl made the perfect play. Sometimes it seems to depend on whether or not the puck carrier falls down, even when there is no intentional "hit" on the play.
A good example is the fine line between "angling" (OK) and "rubbing out" (not always OK) when the defensive player is skating towards the puck carrier who's moving up along the boards. Most refs will let rubbing out go as long as the defensive player doesn't make that "little extra" push with the shoulder or arm in establishing position to retrive or take away the puck, and in the process she squeezes the other player out. As long as the defensive player is going for the puck and doesn't have the intent to primarily hit the player into the boards, most refs will let it go. On the other hand I've seen the defensive player get called even when I thought the girl made the perfect play. Sometimes it seems to depend on whether or not the puck carrier falls down, even when there is no intentional "hit" on the play.
-
keepitreal
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:35 pm
...and, the "intent" complication was and is certainly compounded by the 2006-07 Standards of Play inititive from USA Hockey. IMO, no where did this have more impact than in high school girls hockey. It's not only checking and contact that are difficult to call consistently, but interference, which could be enforced seemingly on every play. Thankfully, as the year went on, the enforcement of interference calls in what has always been sound defensive play was backed off from the initial level. Even though the high school level plays by it's own set of standards, the officials, many of who double-duty for MN Hockey, were particularly inconsistent at the beginning of the season last year.MNHockeyFan wrote:I think the intent of the rules is pretty clear. It's the inconsistency of how individual referees interpret them and how they see the play that can create problems.
-
mnreferee1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:29 pm
This is a good example of why officiating no check hockey at higher levels is difficult. In the first line of the above quote is the statement about personal interpretation affecting the decision of the official. In the example is your description and interpretation that may differ with an official.I think the intent of the rules is pretty clear. It's the inconsistency of how individual referees interpret them and how they see the play that can create problems.
A good example is the fine line between "angling" (OK) and "rubbing out" (not always OK) when the defensive player is skating towards the puck carrier who's moving up along the boards. Most refs will let rubbing out go as long as the defensive player doesn't make that "little extra" push with the shoulder or arm in establishing position to retrive or take away the puck, and in the process she squeezes the other player out. As long as the defensive player is going for the puck and doesn't have the intent to primarily hit the player into the boards, most refs will let it go. On the other hand I've seen the defensive player get called even when I thought the girl made the perfect play. Sometimes it seems to depend on whether or not the puck carrier falls down, even when there is no intentional "hit" on the play.
When we are left to interpretation there will always be descrepencies from one incident to another. The position of the official and the play most definetively affects the interpretation. As an official I use the criteria described in the original post
Contact occurs from body positioning, checking creates body positioning.Body contact is a feature of the girls' game. Intentional body checking is not. Body checking occurs when a defensive player's objective is to gain possession of the puck by separating the puck carrier from the puck with a body check. Body contact which occurs when players are attempting to play the puck is permissible regardless of the degree of the contact or any size or skill differential between the players. Intent to separate the puck carrier from the puck with a body check is the primary differentiating factor between allowable body contact and illegal body checking.
If a player is in the proper position they are allowed to use contact to maintain that position. This is what occurs as a result of "angling" A player is maintaining position and contact occurs, sometimes with the unfortunate result of the other player running out of ice and contacting the boards.
A check is intentional contact that results in positioning. The purpose would be to seperate the player from the puck. The word intentional is where I find the most problems. As an official we are asked to judge intent. Some ways that we may do this is, noting the position of the stick, the players skating direction, and their head position. Ex.
A player has their stick at waist hight and is skating at an angle towards the player with their head up which results in contact with the opposing player. This player's intent is most likely a check.
If you remove one of the elements such as stick on the ice, or head down, or skating directly at the player front to front, then the intent has been eliminated. A player with their stick on the ice will have a difficult time making an overt action that results in a check(try it). If a players head is down and they appear to be focusing on the puck, then a violent collision is about to happen which is not a check but can result in one, or both players, falling down. If the players are skating towards each other it is difficult to execute a check. If the hands come up a different penalty might get called but it most likely will not be a checking penalty.
Interference is pretty simple as well. Skate, Play the puck, and don't impede. If this is done no penalties are called. The standard of MSHSL, NFHS, and USA hockey are the same. Officials that work USA and MSHSL games are not asked to interpret the rule differently depending on the level they are officiating. Coaches and Players may want a different standard however the governing bodies do not.
If this is the case then coaching should be called into question. Players will do what they are taught and what they think they can get away with. If a coach is not correcting the behavior, don't ask the officials to ignore it.IMO, no where did this have more impact than in high school girls hockey. It's not only checking and contact that are difficult to call consistently, but interference, which could be enforced seemingly on every play.
Skate, skate, skate. Don't impede. Skate, skate, skate.
mnreferee1 wrote:This is a good example of why officiating no check hockey at higher levels is difficult. In the first line of the above quote is the statement about personal interpretation affecting the decision of the official. In the example is your description and interpretation that may differ with an official.I think the intent of the rules is pretty clear. It's the inconsistency of how individual referees interpret them and how they see the play that can create problems.
A good example is the fine line between "angling" (OK) and "rubbing out" (not always OK) when the defensive player is skating towards the puck carrier who's moving up along the boards. Most refs will let rubbing out go as long as the defensive player doesn't make that "little extra" push with the shoulder or arm in establishing position to retrive or take away the puck, and in the process she squeezes the other player out. As long as the defensive player is going for the puck and doesn't have the intent to primarily hit the player into the boards, most refs will let it go. On the other hand I've seen the defensive player get called even when I thought the girl made the perfect play. Sometimes it seems to depend on whether or not the puck carrier falls down, even when there is no intentional "hit" on the play.
When we are left to interpretation there will always be descrepencies from one incident to another. The position of the official and the play most definetively affects the interpretation. As an official I use the criteria described in the original postContact occurs from body positioning, checking creates body positioning.Body contact is a feature of the girls' game. Intentional body checking is not. Body checking occurs when a defensive player's objective is to gain possession of the puck by separating the puck carrier from the puck with a body check. Body contact which occurs when players are attempting to play the puck is permissible regardless of the degree of the contact or any size or skill differential between the players. Intent to separate the puck carrier from the puck with a body check is the primary differentiating factor between allowable body contact and illegal body checking.
If a player is in the proper position they are allowed to use contact to maintain that position. This is what occurs as a result of "angling" A player is maintaining position and contact occurs, sometimes with the unfortunate result of the other player running out of ice and contacting the boards.
A check is intentional contact that results in positioning. The purpose would be to seperate the player from the puck. The word intentional is where I find the most problems. As an official we are asked to judge intent. Some ways that we may do this is, noting the position of the stick, the players skating direction, and their head position. Ex.
A player has their stick at waist hight and is skating at an angle towards the player with their head up which results in contact with the opposing player. This player's intent is most likely a check.
If you remove one of the elements such as stick on the ice, or head down, or skating directly at the player front to front, then the intent has been eliminated. A player with their stick on the ice will have a difficult time making an overt action that results in a check(try it). If a players head is down and they appear to be focusing on the puck, then a violent collision is about to happen which is not a check but can result in one, or both players, falling down. If the players are skating towards each other it is difficult to execute a check. If the hands come up a different penalty might get called but it most likely will not be a checking penalty.
Interference is pretty simple as well. Skate, Play the puck, and don't impede. If this is done no penalties are called. The standard of MSHSL, NFHS, and USA hockey are the same. Officials that work USA and MSHSL games are not asked to interpret the rule differently depending on the level they are officiating. Coaches and Players may want a different standard however the governing bodies do not.
If this is the case then coaching should be called into question. Players will do what they are taught and what they think they can get away with. If a coach is not correcting the behavior, don't ask the officials to ignore it.IMO, no where did this have more impact than in high school girls hockey. It's not only checking and contact that are difficult to call consistently, but interference, which could be enforced seemingly on every play.
Skate, skate, skate. Don't impede. Skate, skate, skate.
From one official to another, that was very well put. If players could see that we are trying to return the game to the way that it was (all of them should watch Gretzky in the early 80's), players would probably have a better understanding. Great reply from an official who obviously knows what is going on.
My statement had to do with the standard of play in the 80's and how it is today, especially regarding interference, which is one of the topics covered in this post.xwildfan wrote:What does "Gretzky in the 80's" have to do with checking in girls hockey? If an opponent even thought about touching Gretzky, the Oiler goons... Semenko, McSorely, etc. would have been all over them.
What I remember from the 80's was cluth and grab....theref wrote:My statement had to do with the standard of play in the 80's and how it is today, especially regarding interference, which is one of the topics covered in this post.xwildfan wrote:What does "Gretzky in the 80's" have to do with checking in girls hockey? If an opponent even thought about touching Gretzky, the Oiler goons... Semenko, McSorely, etc. would have been all over them.
Today the game flows much better because of the enforcement of interference type penalities.
.
-
hockey fan 01
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:23 pm
checking
I personally believe that girls should be able to check. It is girls against girls... it's not like it's girls vs. boys. I think girls are tough enough to hit, and i'm 100% sure there would be more fans at the games if they could check.
-
eastsidehockey
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:57 pm
That would be the worst move someone could make in regards to girls hockey to allow checking. DUMB. This is what makes Girls hockey great, pure skating, pure hockey, room in the open ice to allow your stars to shine.
Someone must have forgotten that way back when there was no checking in boys high school hockey.
This is a physical sport, depending on the REF the only difference basically is open ice hitting. There is no clutching and grabbing like boys hockey.
Also girls on girls checking, maybe you need to go back to school and see that men and women are different. There would be a boat load of injuries, even though it is girls on girls.
Just a bad idea and would make Girls hockey worse, if that would make more people come to the game than they dont know the game of hockey and the girls are better off not having them show up.
Someone must have forgotten that way back when there was no checking in boys high school hockey.
This is a physical sport, depending on the REF the only difference basically is open ice hitting. There is no clutching and grabbing like boys hockey.
Also girls on girls checking, maybe you need to go back to school and see that men and women are different. There would be a boat load of injuries, even though it is girls on girls.
Just a bad idea and would make Girls hockey worse, if that would make more people come to the game than they dont know the game of hockey and the girls are better off not having them show up.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
eastsidehockey makes good points.
I agree this would be a bad idea, mainly because it would discourage parents from allowing their daughters to take up the game. We already are seeing signs of the number of girls playing at the youth level beginning to level out or even declining in some programs. Hockey already has a reputation for being too rough with too many injuries, and it would be a mistake IMO to allow hard hits in the girls game. Right now girls hockey is a relatively safe sport and I hope it stays that way.
I agree this would be a bad idea, mainly because it would discourage parents from allowing their daughters to take up the game. We already are seeing signs of the number of girls playing at the youth level beginning to level out or even declining in some programs. Hockey already has a reputation for being too rough with too many injuries, and it would be a mistake IMO to allow hard hits in the girls game. Right now girls hockey is a relatively safe sport and I hope it stays that way.
Precisely correct all around IMO. I agree 100%. A great game as is. Leave it that way.eastsidehockey wrote:That would be the worst move someone could make in regards to girls hockey to allow checking. DUMB. This is what makes Girls hockey great, pure skating, pure hockey, room in the open ice to allow your stars to shine.
Someone must have forgotten that way back when there was no checking in boys high school hockey.
This is a physical sport, depending on the REF the only difference basically is open ice hitting. There is no clutching and grabbing like boys hockey.
Also girls on girls checking, maybe you need to go back to school and see that men and women are different. There would be a boat load of injuries, even though it is girls on girls.
Just a bad idea and would make Girls hockey worse, if that would make more people come to the game than they dont know the game of hockey and the girls are better off not having them show up.
checking in girls hockey
i think there should be checking in girls hockey because it's not like some huge guy is gonna come kill u. it's all girls against girls.
Re: checking in girls hockey
hckyrox22 wrote:i think there should be checking in girls hockey because it's not like some huge guy is gonna come kill u. it's all girls against girls.
Just some huge girl...
.
checking in girls hockey
oh... so there probably shouldn't be checking in guys hockey either because there are some big boys and that's not fair to the little guys!! tough 'n' up!!
-
eastsidehockey
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:57 pm
Re: checking in girls hockey
See the smiley face above?hckyrox22 wrote:oh... so there probably shouldn't be checking in guys hockey either because there are some big boys and that's not fair to the little guys!! tough 'n' up!!
Relax ...
.
-
finance_gal
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:58 pm
Why would they want to allow checking in girls hockey? This would kill the sport before it really even has it's legs. I feel that American girls are at a disadvantage right now because so little contact is allowed and I think they should loosen up the rules a little more so that womens hockey in America is played closer to what the international women play. but to open it up to outright checking is asking for nothing but injury's and problems
-
eastsidehockey
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:57 pm
It seems that referees who have played hockey at the HS or college level have a much better idea about the difference between "legal contact" in hockey as compared to illegal checks. They seem to realize that hockey is a contact sport and there will be collisions. Terry Brown (former All American at Augsburg) has officiated a couple of games that I attended and did a great job.
-
Thunderbird77
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm
Allowing checking may actually result in less injuries, not more. When checking is allowed, players know that contact will occur and play 'heads up' hockey. They are better prepared for the contact that results from a check.
My daughter has played both. Her perspective is that she was hurt less when there was checking for the reasons stated above. That being said, an illegal check (ie. Checking from behind, etc) is typically what causes injuries or has the potential to do the greatest harm. It would be interesting to do a study on the number of illegal checks per game and how it correlates with whether or not checking is allowed. From all of the hockey I've watched, it doesn't appear to be related.
Allowing checking in Girl's Hockey would change the game. On the positive side, there would be more passing and team play as in the boys game. There would be less stoppage of play for checking penalties.
On the negative side, there would likely be less girls playing. How many times has it been said, "Yes, my daughter plays hockey, but it's not what you think. There is no checking. ". This is a pretty big negative and overshadows any of the potential positives listed above. My vote would be to leave the policy as is.
My daughter has played both. Her perspective is that she was hurt less when there was checking for the reasons stated above. That being said, an illegal check (ie. Checking from behind, etc) is typically what causes injuries or has the potential to do the greatest harm. It would be interesting to do a study on the number of illegal checks per game and how it correlates with whether or not checking is allowed. From all of the hockey I've watched, it doesn't appear to be related.
Allowing checking in Girl's Hockey would change the game. On the positive side, there would be more passing and team play as in the boys game. There would be less stoppage of play for checking penalties.
On the negative side, there would likely be less girls playing. How many times has it been said, "Yes, my daughter plays hockey, but it's not what you think. There is no checking. ". This is a pretty big negative and overshadows any of the potential positives listed above. My vote would be to leave the policy as is.