HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

This year.

and almost every year.


D6 refs are amazingly strict


Will this ever change?

Post Opinions.

Are they consistently strict?

Most issues stem from not calling games in a similar manner. It sounds like to me you have a good thing going.

At least you know what to expect.

Consistency is the key for players and coaches. The refs arent consistent and that is problem. Each one has a different opinion and most of them never played the game.

Hockey Guru wrote:This year.

and almost every year.


D6 refs are amazingly strict


Will this ever change?

Post Opinions.

They are amazingly strict because the head official is that way. He drives that philosophy down to his refs. Basically, he wants his guys/girls to enforce the rules as they are laid out. In my opinion, that's good for the game.

Enforcement of rules has been a good thing for the NHL. I believe the Standards of Play is a good thing for Minnesota hockey. It creates a better game and our players will end up being more skilled and enjoy the game more.

Hockey Guru, It will never change, there going to stay like that.

Yes, D6 refs are very strict. If you go up north, you will see many things that are let go to keep the game going. Personally, I like that better because it keeps the game going and you don't have those horrible calls with 2 minutes left in the game and it costs one team a HEP point or a win.

Bardown, I agree, Up north and down south, you see them being alot more physical, and finishing there checks, even though there way late.

In my humble opinion, D6 has some of the best refs in the state. The head official stresses the fact that USA Hockey has established the rules of the game, therefore the officials have an obligation to call the game by the rules. Whether an official has played the game or not has nothing to do with calling the game by the rules. The new standard of play was put in place as an initiative by USA hockey to stress the importance on player, and skill development. D6 officials take a lot of pride in the job they do, they are paid to call the game by the rules regardless of the score or time remaining in a game. No longer is the outcome of the game going to be influenced by the less skilled players like the days in the past. A slower player will not be allowed to hinder or intimidate better skilled players, because the official is “allowing the players to dictate the outcome of the game”. To the contrary, the paradigm has shifted to allow the more skilled, stronger, and faster players dictate the outcome of the game verses the days of old. Prior to the focus on standards of play the less skilled players were allowed to dictate the outcome of the game by allowing them to cheat. Yes, cheat. There have been no changes in the rules only the standards of play have been emphasized.
Letting things go to allow the game to keep going is a dangerous philosophy. As the game progresses and you have allowed infractions to go in an effort to keep the game going the game will ultimately end up getting out of control. If you let one call go, you are obligated to let other calls go, the next thing you know the game is gone and out of control. It is the coaches and players obligation to control their teams, not the officials. The officials are obligated to call the game with the same amount of consistency regardless of the score, time remaining, or fair play points.
Finishing checks is a pathetic term for intimidating or attempting to injure players; you can thank your TV commentators that you grew up listening to for putting that crap in your head. In youth hockey, the only checks that can be “finished” when a player is without the puck are the unavoidable ones after the puck carrier has released the puck. The philosophy of the player is in possession of the puck until another player has touched or received the pass or shot is setting your player up for a charging or roughing call. Read the rulebook. Don’t be mistaken, this penalty will be called. If this infraction is not called, you will slowly see more and more players take liberties and again the game will swing out of control. Simply ask yourself, when you see late hits occur continuously does the game get out of control at the end?

Having ranted long enough, yes I am a ref. Before you even think about cicatrizing the jobs that refs do, go out and become a USA Cert. Ref and give it a shot. Oops, sorry about that, I didn’t want to come off sound defensive. Sometimes when you hear stupid statements like “Each one has a different opinion and most of them never played the game.” You end up taking it personally.

hiptzech wrote:Sometimes when you hear stupid statements like “Each one has a different opinion and most of them never played the game.” You end up taking it personally.

The funny thing is that most players and coaches have never reffed the game. If only ignorance was bliss we'd all get along!

Welcome to the board.

hiptzech wrote:In my humble opinion, D6 has some of the best refs in the state. The head official stresses the fact that USA Hockey has established the rules of the game, therefore the officials have an obligation to call the game by the rules. Whether an official has played the game or not has nothing to do with calling the game by the rules. The new standard of play was put in place as an initiative by USA hockey to stress the importance on player, and skill development. D6 officials take a lot of pride in the job they do, they are paid to call the game by the rules regardless of the score or time remaining in a game. No longer is the outcome of the game going to be influenced by the less skilled players like the days in the past. A slower player will not be allowed to hinder or intimidate better skilled players, because the official is “allowing the players to dictate the outcome of the game”. To the contrary, the paradigm has shifted to allow the more skilled, stronger, and faster players dictate the outcome of the game verses the days of old. Prior to the focus on standards of play the less skilled players were allowed to dictate the outcome of the game by allowing them to cheat. Yes, cheat. There have been no changes in the rules only the standards of play have been emphasized.
Letting things go to allow the game to keep going is a dangerous philosophy. As the game progresses and you have allowed infractions to go in an effort to keep the game going the game will ultimately end up getting out of control. If you let one call go, you are obligated to let other calls go, the next thing you know the game is gone and out of control. It is the coaches and players obligation to control their teams, not the officials. The officials are obligated to call the game with the same amount of consistency regardless of the score, time remaining, or fair play points.
Finishing checks is a pathetic term for intimidating or attempting to injure players; you can thank your TV commentators that you grew up listening to for putting that crap in your head. In youth hockey, the only checks that can be “finished” when a player is without the puck are the unavoidable ones after the puck carrier has released the puck. The philosophy of the player is in possession of the puck until another player has touched or received the pass or shot is setting your player up for a charging or roughing call. Read the rulebook. Don’t be mistaken, this penalty will be called. If this infraction is not called, you will slowly see more and more players take liberties and again the game will swing out of control. Simply ask yourself, when you see late hits occur continuously does the game get out of control at the end?

Having ranted long enough, yes I am a ref. Before you even think about cicatrizing the jobs that refs do, go out and become a USA Cert. Ref and give it a shot. Oops, sorry about that, I didn’t want to come off sound defensive. Sometimes when you hear stupid statements like “Each one has a different opinion and most of them never played the game.” You end up taking it personally.

Nicely stated........I am not a ref. But, I do agree with you and your points. Keep up the good work!

Thanks for the support Break Out and Spin...

Welcome to the bored, glad to have another ref on here. What area do you work in?

That was a nicely stated argument and it makes a lot of sense. But I know the answer to this but I'll bring this about too.

Why do the "bigger" kids who have clean (shoulder checks) on littler kids usually get the penalties?

DaSTeK wrote:That was a nicely stated argument and it makes a lot of sense. But I know the answer to this but I'll bring this about too.

Why do the "bigger" kids who have clean (shoulder checks) on littler kids usually get the penalties?

First off to the Ref: I work D6 and TC...

DaSTek,

What is the penalty that they are being called for? Sometimes those "bigger" kids stick a shoulder into the head, Head Contact is the penalty there. I attempt to make a comment to the coaches prior to the game when I see bigger kids on the ice and just ask them to keep their hands down to avoid that contact to the head call, I believe it helps. It's tough to answer a question like yours because it is a little vague. It is also difficult to answer hypothetical questions with out asking 3-5 more questions about the situation so you can fully understand the circumstances. And then of course there are those "No Call" questions, "Why didn't you call that?", sometimes you have to see them before you can even decide to call them.

So what is the situation and what was the call?

breakout wrote:

Hockey Guru wrote:This year.

and almost every year.


D6 refs are amazingly strict


Will this ever change?

Post Opinions.

They are amazingly strict because the head official is that way. He drives that philosophy down to his refs. Basically, he wants his guys/girls to enforce the rules as they are laid out. In my opinion, that's good for the game.

Enforcement of rules has been a good thing for the NHL. I believe the Standards of Play is a good thing for Minnesota hockey. It creates a better game and our players will end up being more skilled and enjoy the game more.

There you have it
________
Marijuana News

Well you got it right when you talked about the shoulder to the head.

I mean a 6"2 player is obviously going to hit a 5"2 players head with his shoulder no matter how hard he tries not too. So is any contact to the head illegal? Thus rendering it impossible for bigger players to check littler ones if the refs are "consistent".

DaSTeK wrote:Well you got it right when you talked about the shoulder to the head.

I mean a 6"2 player is obviously going to hit a 5"2 players head with his shoulder no matter how hard he tries not too. So is any contact to the head illegal? Thus rendering it impossible for bigger players to check littler ones if the refs are "consistent".

I'll say this, is doesn't matter what the size differential is, you can't hit the oppossing player in the head period!

The hands, are not supposed to come up under the helmet or above, and neither is the body.

We are talking about youth players here, and no one needs to get hurt.
I think the bigger players on the smaller players need to use their hips more on checks to stay low, and their size advantage in corners by using simple body position to win battles.

sounds like i plan

ill take your advice. i get penalties about half the time i check little kids

hiptzech wrote:

DaSTeK wrote:That was a nicely stated argument and it makes a lot of sense. But I know the answer to this but I'll bring this about too.

Why do the "bigger" kids who have clean (shoulder checks) on littler kids usually get the penalties?

First off to the Ref: I work D6 and TC...

DaSTek,

What is the penalty that they are being called for? Sometimes those "bigger" kids stick a shoulder into the head, Head Contact is the penalty there. I attempt to make a comment to the coaches prior to the game when I see bigger kids on the ice and just ask them to keep their hands down to avoid that contact to the head call, I believe it helps. It's tough to answer a question like yours because it is a little vague. It is also difficult to answer hypothetical questions with out asking 3-5 more questions about the situation so you can fully understand the circumstances. And then of course there are those "No Call" questions, "Why didn't you call that?", sometimes you have to see them before you can even decide to call them.

So what is the situation and what was the call?

Most smaller kids, when being checked, duck their head. A bigger kid has no chance no matter how they are coached to avoid the penalty if the ref follows some standards. I have seen many peewee teams with larger players destroyed by refs calling penalties against smaller teams being coached to take the penalty-a lot of them in D6 especially at the B levels. Fortunately there are quality refs at the D6 A level in peewee that factor judgment and not solely rely on standards.

Which brings me to another point, I was playing Eagan I believe, who has a really small defenseman, I skated out to the point and "finished" my check, I would of had a pretty clean hit if the kid didn't bend his waist so I would tumble on top of him.

In the end i DID tumble on top of him and i got a penalty for roughing. When in fact all i did was fall on him. Aye?

So that's a new way to check, just fall on the person, don't jump, don't use your shoulder or fists.


=]

Just use gravitational force =P

[quote="DaSTeK"]Which brings me to another point, I was playing Eagan I believe, who has a really small defenseman, I skated out to the point and "finished" my check, I would of had a pretty clean hit if the kid didn't bend his waist so I would tumble on top of him.

In the end i DID tumble on top of him and i got a penalty for roughing. When in fact all i did was fall on him. Aye?

So that's a new way to check, just fall on the person, don't jump, don't use your shoulder or fists.

DaSTeK,

Not fully understanding the circumstances of the play that you are referring to, the roughing call could have very well been because of a late hit due to finishing your check. I mentioned this in my previous post. I have attached the link to the USA Hockey Rule book on line. Use your search feature to find rules and/or interpretations that you may be looking for. Also note, the Casebook is great for getting a better understanding of rule interpetation.

http://www.usahockey.com//Template_Usah ... 2&ID=20072

I pulled the below from the USA Hockey Rule Book;

Hockey Guru,
I bet this is a little more than what you expected when you started this thread, hope this helps explain and validate your observations about D6 refs. Have a great hockey season.

OTHER INFRACTIONS
In addition to the above mentioned enforcement standards, all
other infractions, including contact to the head, checking from
behind, cross checking, high sticking and roughing (including late
avoidable check) shall be penalized to a strict enforcement standard.

640 Unnecessary Roughness (Roughing)
(b) Except for Adult age classifications, a minor or major penalty
shall be assessed under this rule for any avoidable body check
to an opponent who does not have possession and control of
the puck. (See Glossary.) If the opponent is injured from this
check, a major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be
assessed.

è Situation 3
What is the USA Hockey interpretation of illegal body
checking to a player still deemed to be in possession of the
puck?
A player is considered in possession of the puck after he no
longer has possession and control of the puck, until such time
as the puck is next played by another player. The rules
prohibit “avoidable” body checking to a player in possession
(not in possession and control) of the puck.
Rule Reference 640(b).
If the checking player has initiated his legal body check while
the opponent has possession and control, then when he
“finishes the check” it should be considered a good play and
no penalty should be assessed.
An “avoidable check” is one which is primarily done to
punish the player who just had possession and control of the
puck. The checking player does not initiate his body check
until such possession and control is lost. Or, the check is
initiated while possession and control applies, but the
checking player has ample time to avoid completing the check
without risking his own safety.

Body Checking
A legal body check is one in which a player checks an opponent
who is in possession of the puck, by using his hip or body from
the front, diagonally from the front or straight from the side, and
does not take more than two fast steps in executing the check.
Legitimate body checking must be done only with the trunk of
the body (hips and shoulders) and must be above the opponent’s
knees and below the neck. If body checking is unnecessarily
rough, it must be penalized.

hiptzech
thanks for that, it's hard to explain to a kid on the drive home why he gets a penalty every time he gets around the "little" guy on the other team. I will share your explanation with him, I think it will help a lot. Turned out to be a great topic

Most smaller kids, when being checked, duck their head. A bigger kid has no chance no matter how they are coached to avoid the penalty if the ref follows some standards. I have seen many peewee teams with larger players destroyed by refs calling penalties against smaller teams being coached to take the penalty-a lot of them in D6 especially at the B levels. Fortunately there are quality refs at the D6 A level in peewee that factor judgment and not solely rely on standards.[/quote]

frederick61,

Players are coach-able no matter how big or small they are. To say that you cannot coach and teach a big kid how and more importantly when to check a smaller player is an excuse. The proper use of a check is to separate a player from the puck or play, not to punish them. Players are taught to Read and React, if they are not being taught this fundamental then the coaches need to re-evaluate the practice plans. If a smaller kid is ducking away from the check, is there really a need to finish that check? It’s all about time and space. A player that is focused on avoiding a freight train and has turned his attention away from the play has been removed from the play. The big boys need to understand their effect that they have on smaller players. Shear size alone gives them the completive advantage with regard to space in the Time and Space paradigm. If the refs are calling penalties for contact to the head in the instances that you are identifying, then the players should be doing what they are taught “Read and React” to the officials calls as well as the players.

Peewees love to hit. They have been waiting years to start hitting; they finally get their chance. They need to be taught how and when to hit and for what purpose. Don’t get me wrong, checking is a big part of the game and I love that aspect of the game. The proper timing of a big hit can change a game. It could give a team a big needed lift, however it could also end a game due to injury. The game can just as easily be ended by a little player laying a big illegal hit on the bigger player as it can in the reverse. Do you think that you may be giving a Peewee B player too much credit by bending over to take a hit to draw a penalty? I don’t think so. If I were 11 or 12 and I see a big kid lining me up, I am going to do anything I can to avoid the hit. Think about when you played the game down at the park with the older kids, how many times did you get run before you started ducking?

hiptzech wrote:Most smaller kids, when being checked, duck their head. A bigger kid has no chance no matter how they are coached to avoid the penalty if the ref follows some standards. I have seen many peewee teams with larger players destroyed by refs calling penalties against smaller teams being coached to take the penalty-a lot of them in D6 especially at the B levels. Fortunately there are quality refs at the D6 A level in peewee that factor judgment and not solely rely on standards.

frederick61,

Players are coach-able no matter how big or small they are. To say that you cannot coach and teach a big kid how and more importantly when to check a smaller player is an excuse. The proper use of a check is to separate a player from the puck or play, not to punish them. Players are taught to Read and React, if they are not being taught this fundamental then the coaches need to re-evaluate the practice plans. If a smaller kid is ducking away from the check, is there really a need to finish that check? It’s all about time and space. A player that is focused on avoiding a freight train and has turned his attention away from the play has been removed from the play. The big boys need to understand their effect that they have on smaller players. Shear size alone gives them the completive advantage with regard to space in the Time and Space paradigm. If the refs are calling penalties for contact to the head in the instances that you are identifying, then the players should be doing what they are taught “Read and React” to the officials calls as well as the players.

Peewees love to hit. They have been waiting years to start hitting; they finally get their chance. They need to be taught how and when to hit and for what purpose. Don’t get me wrong, checking is a big part of the game and I love that aspect of the game. The proper timing of a big hit can change a game. It could give a team a big needed lift, however it could also end a game due to injury. The game can just as easily be ended by a little player laying a big illegal hit on the bigger player as it can in the reverse. Do you think that you may be giving a Peewee B player too much credit by bending over to take a hit to draw a penalty? I don’t think so. If I were 11 or 12 and I see a big kid lining me up, I am going to do anything I can to avoid the hit. Think about when you played the game down at the park with the older kids, how many times did you get run before you started ducking?[/quote]

1. The proper use of a check is to separate a player from the puck or play, not to punish them. How does the ref determine what is a punishing check in hockey. It becomes a judgment call then an inexperienced ref just react to the hit. The larger player hitting a smaller player is not checking incorrectly, his check is delivered with more force because the laws of physics state that force is equal to mass times acceleration. If the larger player (mass) makes a legal check he will deliver more force. How to do coach a 11-12 year old to make his body smaller. Does he carry a magic button that loses 25 pounds of mass before a check?

hiptzech:

Thank you for being an official. It is a hard job.

I agree with most of what you've posted in this thread but have some nits to pick with this:

hiptzech wrote:Finishing checks is a pathetic term for intimidating or attempting to injure players; you can thank your TV commentators that you grew up listening to for putting that crap in your head. In youth hockey, the only checks that can be “finished” when a player is without the puck are the unavoidable ones after the puck carrier has released the puck. The philosophy of the player is in possession of the puck until another player has touched or received the pass or shot is setting your player up for a charging or roughing call. Read the rulebook.

The concept of "finishing your check" is a legal and sound defensive tactic. Forecheckers should be taught to (legally) take the body on the passer to avoid the odd-man situation created via give-and-go. The definition of "possession of the puck" (which is not limited to having the puck on your stick) clearly allows for a legal means of finishing a check.

Pathetic crap?

You also seem to be implying that no form of physical intimidation is allowed in ice hockey. That is simply not the case. A team that can execute the hard (legal) body check has every right to use this to their competitive advantage. They would be foolish not to use it. Refer to the second paragraph of the Rule Book section Standard of Play and Rule Emphasis (page ix):

The goal of the enforcement standard is to reduce restraining infractions in the game and not to remove legal body checking or body contact. A hard body check or using body contact/position (non-checking classifications) to gain a competitive advantage over the opponent should not be penalized as long as it is performed within the rules.