HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

In the Bantam B-1 District 6 semi's we had a call where our player finished a check on the puck carrier and was given a penalty which the ref explained to us as "An avoidable Hit". He even gave us some rule reference # in the 600's.

Any of the Referee Braintrust on the board have an explanation?

What a shock that this call was made by a D6 official

Perhaps it's a Kemp original.

from usa rulebook

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.

and rule 640b

(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.

sounds like this D6 ref knew the rules.

Pens4 wrote:In the Bantam B-1 District 6 semi's we had a call where our player finished a check on the puck carrier and was given a penalty which the ref explained to us as "An avoidable Hit". He even gave us some rule reference # in the 600's.

Any of the Referee Braintrust on the board have an explanation?

All of the penalties are in the 600's! (601-640)

It is a judgement call, but the intent is to not allow a team to "punish" a player for having the "audacity" of carrying the puck. A large percentage of bantam player's checks are late and avoidable but only rarely does this get called.

Was the check on a puck carrier or a former puck carrier? Note that the rule specifies that the player must have possession and control. If the pass is gone, the player no longer has possession or control. It now becomes the officials judgement as to whether the checker had time to avoid the check or not. I know all of us older players were taught to "finish our checks" but we all know that the reason for doing that was to interfere with or intimidate the opponent from getting back into the play.

This was a point of emphasis three years ago and continues today. If I make a pass and you check me 1.5-2 seconds later, you can be called for interference. So if your players are more than 2 steps away from a puck carrier, you should teach them to peal off and get back into play.

This was a clean check put on a puck carrier. It was a solid check along the boards with about one second to play in the period. The defender would have known that there was little time left, but not exactly how much time. (The check was NOT a late hit after the buzzar)
Both teams were very confused on what the purpose of the call was in that particular situation.

Was this the Burnsville, EP Red Game???

If yes the call was made with about 10 min left in the second.
I'm not sure which buzzer would have sounded around then?

I was at this game.
No one was confused that was involved with the game. Parents maybe.
EP Coaches may have been upset.

The kid did not have the puck.
Judgment call.

Why is it a big deal now???
It was two weeks ago.

I believe it was that game (I know is was D6 playoffs on BIG2), but that's not when it occurred. It occurred at the end of the second period, just before the resurfacing. EP began the 3rd short-handed because of it.

The rule applied by the official is valid. The language for what is essentially a late hit includes the words "avoidable check." The question is did the hit contain avoidable contact . . .but now we are in the same realm as any other call by an official . . .was it really tripping? did he really check him from behind? was that really a slash? . . .and we all know there is very little sense in arguing the interpretation of a penalty call. You are not likely to convince an official that they didn't actually see what they think they saw.

I agree there is very little reason to be talking about it now, but I guess that's the purpose of the Forum sometimes. Anything, anytime.

Don’t know the game, call, or situation but if……If the hit was a second before the horn sounded and there appeared to be no valid reason for the hit, or even the force and location (on the body) of the hit, it could have been a game management call. The hit may have been in the officials mind an act of intimidation or punishment, therefore bringing him cause to make the call in the effort to manage the game. End of the 2nd period in an intense, big hitting game may bring the call out and sending the message that this game will not get out of control in the 3rd.
I don’t ask you to accept this explanation, nor do I expect it to be understood by everyone. Just my opinion and a possibility….

Thanks for the input...I'm clearer on the picture.

D6Rocks...If I keep asking questions...Some day I'll have your knowledge of the game.