I decided to do some research based on last night’s games (January 17 ). Here is what I found:
I went to the hub and I looked at 33 box scores (There were 42 games last night, but not all of them had finalized box scores posted this morning).
There were 38 MAJOR PENALTIES (Checking from Behind, Boarding, Illegal Check to the Head)
Here is the break-down of what was called:
Checking from Behind - Misconduct (10:00) – 12 called
Boarding - Major (5:00) – 16 called
Illegal Check to the Head - Major (5:00) - 10 called
***I found something else very interesting while collecting these stats...
MANY of these penalties occurred in the last 5 minutes of the game....
NEW RULES STATISTICS from 1/17/12**
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Nice collection of data, it would be interesting to know if or how many game outcomes were effected by the calls in the last 5min. someplace on the forum that issue was brought up HM/EP game???
In other words was a team leading before the penalty was called and led to the other team scoring to tie or win. On the other hand if your down and have one of these calls then kills chances of being able to pull a goalie for a rally.
It will be interesting,boys better be ready to back off if they see numbers and they should.
In other words was a team leading before the penalty was called and led to the other team scoring to tie or win. On the other hand if your down and have one of these calls then kills chances of being able to pull a goalie for a rally.
It will be interesting,boys better be ready to back off if they see numbers and they should.
If no one else find that out, I'll do a follow-up on it later todaybstarr15 wrote:Nice collection of data, it would be interesting to know if or how many game outcomes were effected by the calls in the last 5min. someplace on the forum that issue was brought up HM/EP game???
In other words was a team leading before the penalty was called and led to the other team scoring to tie or win. On the other hand if your down and have one of these calls then kills chances of being able to pull a goalie for a rally.
It will be interesting,boys better be ready to back off if they see numbers and they should.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
starmvp, I assume when say "Checking from Behind - Misconduct (10:00) – 12 called" you mean "Checking from Behind - Major (5:00) + Misconduct (10:00) – 12 called"?
Based on the numbers I think it's safe to say that the coaches and players STILL have NOT gotten the message. The sheer numbers only show the NEED for the changes in the rules.
Hopefully we'll start to see the number of these infractions start to go down, which they will if they start to cost offending teams some big games (as opposed to the refs starting to become more hesitant to call them the majors that they are).
Based on the numbers I think it's safe to say that the coaches and players STILL have NOT gotten the message. The sheer numbers only show the NEED for the changes in the rules.
Hopefully we'll start to see the number of these infractions start to go down, which they will if they start to cost offending teams some big games (as opposed to the refs starting to become more hesitant to call them the majors that they are).
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
Quick scan of score sheets for gamechanger majors:
MAYBE: Denfeld gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (checking from behind), lost game to Hibbing 3-1. Gamechanger? Maybe.
NO: Duluth East gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (head contact), beat Apple Valley 6-4. Gamechanger? Mostly just made it look closer than it was.
DEFINITELY. Hutchinson 6, Mound-Westonka 5 (OT). Hutch scores three in third to force OT. Tying goal comes during a late PP for major (Checking from Behind). Definitely a gamechanger.
I think in all of these cases, the PP goals were scored late in the penalty, meaning the damage was done after a minor or even a double minor would have expired.
Full disclosure, FWIW: I totally support the rule change, and believe that a gamechanger major is precisely the kind of outcome that will help put teeth into the new awareness for any player, parent, or coach who still doesn't get it. The game is changing. Play rugby or become an MMA fighter if you want the rough stuff.
MAYBE: Denfeld gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (checking from behind), lost game to Hibbing 3-1. Gamechanger? Maybe.
NO: Duluth East gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (head contact), beat Apple Valley 6-4. Gamechanger? Mostly just made it look closer than it was.
DEFINITELY. Hutchinson 6, Mound-Westonka 5 (OT). Hutch scores three in third to force OT. Tying goal comes during a late PP for major (Checking from Behind). Definitely a gamechanger.
I think in all of these cases, the PP goals were scored late in the penalty, meaning the damage was done after a minor or even a double minor would have expired.
Full disclosure, FWIW: I totally support the rule change, and believe that a gamechanger major is precisely the kind of outcome that will help put teeth into the new awareness for any player, parent, or coach who still doesn't get it. The game is changing. Play rugby or become an MMA fighter if you want the rough stuff.
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
Edited to add more:
Princeton 4, Monticello 3 (OT). Princeton scores 2 PPGs on majors (head contact), Monticello scores 1 PPG on major (boarding). Changed the whole complexion of the game. (1 other major was successfully killed off). 4 PPGs in a 7-goal game, 3 of them on majors.
Tartan 4, Mahtomedi 3 (OT). Gamewinner during major assessed to Mahto in OT (head contact). Also during a high stick minor + misconduct to Mahto
Crookston 4, Det Lakes 3. Crookston scores in 1st period during a Det. Lakes boarding major. (Even strength on ice, apparently)
Northern Lakes 3, Park Rapids 1. NL scores PPG during major (boarding) with 30 seconds left in game.
Fort Frances 5, Lake Of Woods 3. Interesting one here: a minor given for boarding and a minor given for checking from behind, both resulted in PPGs for Fort Frances. Game played in Ontario (Canadian rules).
Princeton 4, Monticello 3 (OT). Princeton scores 2 PPGs on majors (head contact), Monticello scores 1 PPG on major (boarding). Changed the whole complexion of the game. (1 other major was successfully killed off). 4 PPGs in a 7-goal game, 3 of them on majors.
Tartan 4, Mahtomedi 3 (OT). Gamewinner during major assessed to Mahto in OT (head contact). Also during a high stick minor + misconduct to Mahto
Crookston 4, Det Lakes 3. Crookston scores in 1st period during a Det. Lakes boarding major. (Even strength on ice, apparently)
Northern Lakes 3, Park Rapids 1. NL scores PPG during major (boarding) with 30 seconds left in game.
Fort Frances 5, Lake Of Woods 3. Interesting one here: a minor given for boarding and a minor given for checking from behind, both resulted in PPGs for Fort Frances. Game played in Ontario (Canadian rules).
Last edited by Shinbone_News on Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[quote="Shinbone_News"]Quick scan of score sheets for gamechanger majors:
MAYBE: Denfeld gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (checking from behind), lost game to Hibbing 3-1. Gamechanger? Maybe.
NO: Duluth East gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (head contact), beat Apple Valley 6-4. Gamechanger? Mostly just made it look closer than it was.
DEFINITELY. Hutchinson 6, Mound-Westonka 5 (OT). Hutch scores three in third to force OT. Tying goal comes during a late PP for major (Checking from Behind). Definitely a gamechanger.
Not a game changer. Hibbing was also called for a major (checking from behind) in the 3rd period and had been taking it to Denfeld all game.
MAYBE: Denfeld gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (checking from behind), lost game to Hibbing 3-1. Gamechanger? Maybe.
NO: Duluth East gave up a PP goal during a late 3rd period major (head contact), beat Apple Valley 6-4. Gamechanger? Mostly just made it look closer than it was.
DEFINITELY. Hutchinson 6, Mound-Westonka 5 (OT). Hutch scores three in third to force OT. Tying goal comes during a late PP for major (Checking from Behind). Definitely a gamechanger.
Not a game changer. Hibbing was also called for a major (checking from behind) in the 3rd period and had been taking it to Denfeld all game.
-
Defensive Zone
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:37 am
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
On December 30th, the day Jabby was injured:
Out of 30 Games:
18 minors for cross checking
6 minors for head contact
9 minors for boarding
1 minor for charging*
1 minor for head butting
3 2+10s for checking from behind (1 of these was from the BSM/MG game immediately after the JV game in which Jabby was injured).
* the single charging call was a double minor that included an elbowing penalty.
To me what really stands out is the lack of charging and boarding calls. I would guess (completely out of the blue) that most of those cross-checks were from behind as it rarely gets called in any other scenario.
Edit for clarification: 1) Obviously there were lots of other penalties, I just counted what most would consider penalties for "dangerous" contact, excluding roughing.
2)Note that many of these games were in holiday tournaments, which may or may not have some influence on how games are called. Discussion for obsessives and completists.
3) Two of the thirty games did not have game sheets or did not report specific penalties.
4) I am inclined to say that the striking difference between Dec 30 and Jan 17 is better/more aggressive reffing. High school refs have a lot of work to do to re-establish their credibility in MN, and the ability of MN coaches to blackball HS refs they don't like has GOT to be eliminated.
Out of 30 Games:
18 minors for cross checking
6 minors for head contact
9 minors for boarding
1 minor for charging*
1 minor for head butting
3 2+10s for checking from behind (1 of these was from the BSM/MG game immediately after the JV game in which Jabby was injured).
* the single charging call was a double minor that included an elbowing penalty.
To me what really stands out is the lack of charging and boarding calls. I would guess (completely out of the blue) that most of those cross-checks were from behind as it rarely gets called in any other scenario.
Edit for clarification: 1) Obviously there were lots of other penalties, I just counted what most would consider penalties for "dangerous" contact, excluding roughing.
2)Note that many of these games were in holiday tournaments, which may or may not have some influence on how games are called. Discussion for obsessives and completists.
3) Two of the thirty games did not have game sheets or did not report specific penalties.
4) I am inclined to say that the striking difference between Dec 30 and Jan 17 is better/more aggressive reffing. High school refs have a lot of work to do to re-establish their credibility in MN, and the ability of MN coaches to blackball HS refs they don't like has GOT to be eliminated.
Last edited by Shinbone_News on Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
majors
Another thing to think about:
are the calls coming because the players don't "get it" or the refs are being more aggressive in whistling those infractions -- or even a combo of the two?
you can even throw in whether the inflicted player might be more willing to set himself up to receive such a penalty (turning at the last second) or willing to physically give in when receiving an infraction (that's a nice way to say taking a dive).
probably aren't answers to these questions, but certainly factors to keep in mind going forward.
are the calls coming because the players don't "get it" or the refs are being more aggressive in whistling those infractions -- or even a combo of the two?
you can even throw in whether the inflicted player might be more willing to set himself up to receive such a penalty (turning at the last second) or willing to physically give in when receiving an infraction (that's a nice way to say taking a dive).
probably aren't answers to these questions, but certainly factors to keep in mind going forward.
-
TheClipper
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:00 am
Good work, Starmvp!
Responsibility for conduct always has, and always will, rest on the players. However, it's only through strict referee enforcement ( aka "zero tolerance") that players/teams/coaches will experience enough consequence to change behavior.
let's give the rule changes time to work--because they will.
Responsibility for conduct always has, and always will, rest on the players. However, it's only through strict referee enforcement ( aka "zero tolerance") that players/teams/coaches will experience enough consequence to change behavior.
let's give the rule changes time to work--because they will.
rules
has anyone determined with certainty whether one of these infractions with less than 5 mins in the game means some sort of carry-over consequence?
And objectively as possible, I'd like to hear from folks at games about what they see and their views on strictness of enforcement and perceptions about changes in player behavior.
of course, observations from refs would be valuable as well.
And objectively as possible, I'd like to hear from folks at games about what they see and their views on strictness of enforcement and perceptions about changes in player behavior.
of course, observations from refs would be valuable as well.
new rules
They should change the rules to what the girls go bye. That way the kids know if you touch an opponent anywhere you will get a penalty. That way the top players can skate all over the ice and showcase their talents. I do not like the new rules.
Intersting to call them game changers.
Assuming that the refs would have called the penalty under any circumstance:
1. Did the PP team score more than one goal on the major?
2. Did they score the goal after the 2 minutes would have expired?
I do not think the scoring is the indicator of whether this is a good ruling or not.
The indicator is the nubmer of illegal, viloent hints and the resulting injuires, I believe.
I am sure there is no scientific data concerning the number of 'bas" hits and probably very little gathered data on serious injuries from those types o fhits available prior the change.
I would hope the MSHSL is NOW measuring serious injuries and the cause of those injuries. If those numbers are low perhaps we can assume that the rule change has had a positive effect.
Assuming that the refs would have called the penalty under any circumstance:
1. Did the PP team score more than one goal on the major?
2. Did they score the goal after the 2 minutes would have expired?
I do not think the scoring is the indicator of whether this is a good ruling or not.
The indicator is the nubmer of illegal, viloent hints and the resulting injuires, I believe.
I am sure there is no scientific data concerning the number of 'bas" hits and probably very little gathered data on serious injuries from those types o fhits available prior the change.
I would hope the MSHSL is NOW measuring serious injuries and the cause of those injuries. If those numbers are low perhaps we can assume that the rule change has had a positive effect.
Re: new rules
This is just my opinion but rather than posting a sarcastic comment you could potentially provide value by actually discussing the issue. If you don't like the new rules, why not? Because it actually places more emphasis on enforcing the rules that exist? Because the 5 min major is too much time for someone to serve for some of these penalties? What specifically is it going to take out of the game that you will miss?hoczone wrote:They should change the rules to what the girls go bye. That way the kids know if you touch an opponent anywhere you will get a penalty. That way the top players can skate all over the ice and showcase their talents. I do not like the new rules.
I've read many comments on here saying the way the rules are written are good, they just need to be consistently called by the refs and taught by the coaches. IMO, this is a step in that direction.
Thanks to shinbone for looking up the penalties from a different date as well. It will be interesting to continue tracking this.
"Based on the numbers I think it's safe to say that the coaches and players STILL have NOT gotten the message. The sheer numbers only show the NEED for the changes in the rules."
I respectfully disagree, I think the huge number of major penalties and game DQ's in the first night of games since the rule changes only demonstrate the lack of consistency in how referees are calling the game.
I agree with what Lou Nanne said when interviewed shortly after Jack Jablonsky's injury. He said that while what happened to Jack Jablonsky was a tragedy, it was just a freak accident--just like most spinal cord injuries are, from football, or diving, or a car accident, and he went on to warn about not over-reacting to the injury---which I believe was done by changing the rules mid-season without any time for player, coach or most importantly referee training.
Here's an example of inconsistency in calls:
In the Mahtomedi v Tartan game, a Tartan player was assessed an 'elbowing' penalty when he elbowed a Mahtomedi player in the head. The Mahtomedi player ended up leaving the game shortly after the hit with a concussion.
Later, a Mahtomedi player was assessed a 'hit to the head' penalty AND a game DQ with no injury to the Tartan player.
Explain how the Tartan player is called for an 'elbow' when the player he hit gets a concussion and the Mahtomedi player is called for a 'hit to the head' AND a game DQ?
And in the referees defense, being a ref is a part time job for them and with the rule changes happening over the weekend and a game on Tuesday, how could they have possibly have had an opportunity to learn about the new rules and ask questions? It would be very interesting to have a room full of referees review hockey film and each individually record what, if any, penalties they would assess---I would bet that you'd have many many different answers.
I respectfully disagree, I think the huge number of major penalties and game DQ's in the first night of games since the rule changes only demonstrate the lack of consistency in how referees are calling the game.
I agree with what Lou Nanne said when interviewed shortly after Jack Jablonsky's injury. He said that while what happened to Jack Jablonsky was a tragedy, it was just a freak accident--just like most spinal cord injuries are, from football, or diving, or a car accident, and he went on to warn about not over-reacting to the injury---which I believe was done by changing the rules mid-season without any time for player, coach or most importantly referee training.
Here's an example of inconsistency in calls:
In the Mahtomedi v Tartan game, a Tartan player was assessed an 'elbowing' penalty when he elbowed a Mahtomedi player in the head. The Mahtomedi player ended up leaving the game shortly after the hit with a concussion.
Later, a Mahtomedi player was assessed a 'hit to the head' penalty AND a game DQ with no injury to the Tartan player.
Explain how the Tartan player is called for an 'elbow' when the player he hit gets a concussion and the Mahtomedi player is called for a 'hit to the head' AND a game DQ?
And in the referees defense, being a ref is a part time job for them and with the rule changes happening over the weekend and a game on Tuesday, how could they have possibly have had an opportunity to learn about the new rules and ask questions? It would be very interesting to have a room full of referees review hockey film and each individually record what, if any, penalties they would assess---I would bet that you'd have many many different answers.
I hope (and I am sure everyone does, whether they agree with the change or not) that this rule change does reduce (hope, eliminate) serious injuries.
But I had hoped that stop patches would be effective, also.
And they were for about a year.
The 2 & 10 for checking from behind helped, also. For about a year.
The problem is that players/ coaches/ refs/ fans - all of us; adapt.
Coaches will coach to the PK for a major. It will be come excepted that these will happen more frequently. Refs will call them OR find another call if they are so inclined.
From my perspective, the way to reduce potential from injuries from violent hits is EDUCATION/TRAINING/PRACTICE.
Start at squirts with Dzone checking only.
Peewees allow checking in the Dzone and the neutral zone.
Start coaching/training/practice early in development.
Mandatory video, mandatory training of players/coaches on what a illegal violent check looks like, how to minimize the chance of giving and taking one.
with mid-year refresher.
All levels of hockey need to invest in this.
AND, train the fans NOT to yell/cheer "HIT 'EM".
But I had hoped that stop patches would be effective, also.
And they were for about a year.
The 2 & 10 for checking from behind helped, also. For about a year.
The problem is that players/ coaches/ refs/ fans - all of us; adapt.
Coaches will coach to the PK for a major. It will be come excepted that these will happen more frequently. Refs will call them OR find another call if they are so inclined.
From my perspective, the way to reduce potential from injuries from violent hits is EDUCATION/TRAINING/PRACTICE.
Start at squirts with Dzone checking only.
Peewees allow checking in the Dzone and the neutral zone.
Start coaching/training/practice early in development.
Mandatory video, mandatory training of players/coaches on what a illegal violent check looks like, how to minimize the chance of giving and taking one.
with mid-year refresher.
All levels of hockey need to invest in this.
AND, train the fans NOT to yell/cheer "HIT 'EM".
Last edited by elliott70 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
formerlybackofnet
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:25 am
-
The Next One
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:17 pm
-
WASABEMIDJIFAN
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:28 pm
Elliot
The fact that these penalties are, and will change games are ultimately what will reduce the serious injuries.
I would maybe like them to take it a step farther and penalize coaches if there team has a certain number of these majors in a game. Might keep teams from running around in the last minute of a game they can't win looking for blood. Have a coach sit out the next game or two.
If that were the case I wonder how many games Archibald would actually coach.
The fact that these penalties are, and will change games are ultimately what will reduce the serious injuries.
I would maybe like them to take it a step farther and penalize coaches if there team has a certain number of these majors in a game. Might keep teams from running around in the last minute of a game they can't win looking for blood. Have a coach sit out the next game or two.
If that were the case I wonder how many games Archibald would actually coach.
Without some time (say the remainder of this year and next) then you compare data say to entire season 2010, 2009, etc. You can't tell.MNHockeyFan wrote:starmvp, I assume when say "Checking from Behind - Misconduct (10:00) – 12 called" you mean "Checking from Behind - Major (5:00) + Misconduct (10:00) – 12 called"?
Based on the numbers I think it's safe to say that the coaches and players STILL have NOT gotten the message. The sheer numbers only show the NEED for the changes in the rules.
Hopefully we'll start to see the number of these infractions start to go down, which they will if they start to cost offending teams some big games (as opposed to the refs starting to become more hesitant to call them the majors that they are).
There must be averages in Mn Hockey like the average game for a full season had X # Checks in Back, etc.
What happened on the 17th could be a decrease as far as we know not an increase in calls, but I doubt it.
Long story short need more data. Then we also need to compare injuries in the same light, etc.
Re: rules
Exactly!! There needs to be some sort of carry-over consequence! For conference teams, maybe the next time they play, the penalty begins the game? If they don't play each other again, then it goes against that team in their next game?rudy wrote:has anyone determined with certainty whether one of these infractions with less than 5 mins in the game means some sort of carry-over consequence?
And objectively as possible, I'd like to hear from folks at games about what they see and their views on strictness of enforcement and perceptions about changes in player behavior.
of course, observations from refs would be valuable as well.