HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Body contact is legal in girls hockey - absolutely. But what is excessive? I have seen back to back games where one set of refs can call 15+ penalities and the next game other refs call virtually no penalities - for very similar games. While I know every ref is different, there does seem like a real opportunity to be a little more consistent.

Even more - probably more important - I am amazed by the number of times significant obstruction calls do not get made - someone driving to the net is hooked around the waist from behind and slowed, or so much body contact is made that essentially the defender winds up sitting on top of the offensive player - without a call. And then there will be calls made that are ticky-tack - MINOR slashing in the corner away from the puck or something similar - meaningless penalities.

Another interesting situation occurs when one team is more "cheap" than the other (and yes, sometimes this is the team I'm cheering for - sometimes the opponent), and the refs dole out calls against each team almost on a one for one basis. Don't refs see the overall flow of the game and take that into account vs isolated plays?

The point of this question is not to rip refs (I would probably be the worst ref in the world if I was out there), but more to understand what kind of mindset refs have? Do refs take into account the overall flow of the game or do they indeed just look for isolated incidents? Are there teams or players who have reputations that refs watch, or is that forbidden? Is obstruction as important to elimanate as a simple trip or slash?

It appears to me that the NHL and even the college games have moved much more to focus on obstruction as a major issue, with positive results, while HS and youth games still seem to to view obstruction as a non-issue. What is the dividing line between obstruction and just plain old good physical play?

Any thoughts?

What a great topic:

Let me begin by saying that I believe that the game of girls/womens hockey could become the greatest game ever played by female athletes, however, the greatest obstacle is/will be our interpretation and enforcement of the rules as we go forward.

I don't want this game to become the following: boys hockey, womens rugby or roller derby. These games are too physical.

I also don't want the game to become girls lacrosse, girls soccer, girls basketball or mens bandy. These games deny the opportunity for the physical athlete such as Angelo Ruggiero, Krissey Wendall or even Jenny Potter to use their physical talents which are a joy to behold.

These are my opinions and I know that not everyone agrees, but I would like to see Minnesota high school girls hockey evolve into the more physical style played in the Womens WCHA and at Shattuck-St. Marys. The best high school girls hockey that I have seen is played at Shattuck, on the Iron Range and in Canada. I am not saying that Grand Rapids or Hibbing are the best girls teams but their referees are much better at interpreting the play than your District 6 ref from the western suburbs. The district 6 ref wants the bigger girl to go to the penalty box every time she skates by the little girl. He is basically saying, "don't lift weights or get stronger than your opponent because I'm going to send you to the box every time a 95lb 9th grader falls down next to you."

It has been my observation that girls on almost all hockey teams are pretty good sportspeople. Most girls don't want to play a really physical game like the boys and I think thats great. I don't enjoy seeing a "big check" I would rather see a nice set-up.

After this dialogue suggesting that the girls game needs to allow for more smart physical play I do want to say that the refs need to call the stick work and the obstruction. These are not good. If a faster girl is going by you, you should not be allowed to let your stick touch her body. If a forward dumps the puck behind the defense, the defense should not be allowed to step in front of the fore-checker to slow them down. The defender should be forced TO TURN to the puck and skate. And finally I think the refs need to kick-out those players who crotch their opponents. This use of the stick has no purpose other then to intimidate or injure.

I agree with much of what is said here, but I disagree about the MWEHL. From what I've seen, that is much more a clutch & grab/physical league like the NHL of old. I don't believe that the WCHA is like that, but it may have more to do with the quality of officiating - or to honestly be more correct - it's more about the consistency of the officiating.

I guess I also feel a little differently about a D or backchecking F stepping in front of a forchecking F from the opposing team. That is a move I teach (body positioning) to force an oncoming player to make that step around D player IF their partner/D is in the corner picking up a dumped puck. Buys your player another second/step to get to &/or move the puck.

I do agree that obstruction is not good for the game, and I like it being called.

Good clean body contact though (riding a player out to the boards) or use of the body position to gain/maintain control of the puck is a key part of the game.

It's a fine line between body contact and checking & this is why we have trouble with finding consistent refs. Many may actually be very good, but to get them all on the same page consistency wise is not always easy when the discretionary items become even more difficult to call in the case of removing checking as a key component of the game in general.

I teach my girls that girls hockey is a lot like basketball. You have to beat people to spots on the rink. If you win the race to the puck then you are the one being checked. If you are playing defense and you have someone skate into you, you should be fine if you beat them to the spot they want to go to.


I've been both a coach and an official of girls games and let me tell you the key to changing how things are called is not completely on the officials. Coaches need to relax and not scream for a checking call every time someone falls down. Many great defensive plays that I've seen has set the opposing coach off. Coaches need to understand the rule also, not just the officials.


I understand that sometimes the only way for a team to compete is to have the opposing team in the penalty box. But it shouldn't take away from teaching kids the right way to play the game. And that is exactly what it teaches kids. That if you are weaker you will get a penalty call against the opposing team. I've also seen kids who will legitimately get checked but because they are stronger than the opposing kid there will either be a no call or the call will go against the kid who is standing up when the play is done.

It's not the refs fault that girls hockey doens't allow checking, and that difference in the game makes it harder to officiate a girls game in some respects I'd say. The game is far slower still than the boys, but the need to call it based on intent is more needed in girls I believe - and that can be a hard thing to judge or be consistent on I think. Also, Refs have the best vantage point for obvious reasons. There are things that coaches and spectators don't see that refs do. It's taken me a number of years to realize this, but I still haven't come to the point where I won't discuss calls that appear one way to me on the bench and obviously another way to the official(s) on the ice

The biggest problem or "point of emphasis" that I see is not obstruction, but consistency in how physical play is called in G HS Hockey. Like any game though, you typically have to get an idea of what you will and won't get on any given day from the officials, and then play with that in mind. This concept trancends all sports I believe.

And lastly, I like the notion of letting teams play w/o making questionable calls at the end of close games. If blatant, by all means call it - but if not???

The only way things will ever change is if penalties are called when penalties occur. Time of the game should have nothing to do with it.

If an official is going to call something at the start they better call it at the end. The NHL is doing that now and although it took a while for the players to figure it out they have. It is up to players and coaches to figure out what is being called and what isn't and adjust. The only thing we can ask of the refs is to be consistent. That is what I've been hearing in the other posts here. How can you be consistent when you are calling things different from the first to the third.

I think something that could help consistency / training standards is the use of video, if there was someone / some organization that cared to look at it. I would guess that there is someone who takes a video (at least one parent / team manager, etc) of virtually every game. What if there was someplace to submit short video clips of what someone thought either should or shouldn't be a penalty. I don't think it would take very long to get enough video that all interested parties (refs, players, coaches, parents) could see what is and isn't legal.

I think part of the problem is that people try to describe the situations, and descriptions are never the same as a picture.

Would something like that work? Has it already been tried?

gainazone wrote:How can you be consistent when you are calling things different from the first to the third.

I often wonder exactly that in some of the games I've seen.

I guess I would answer with a question. If you are making questionable calls in the first, is that right in the third as well (or at any time)?

hshockeyfan91 wrote:What if there was someplace to submit short video clips of what someone thought either should or shouldn't be a penalty. I don't think it would take very long to get enough video that all interested parties (refs, players, coaches, parents) could see what is and isn't legal.

I think part of the problem is that people try to describe the situations, and descriptions are never the same as a picture.

Would something like that work? Has it already been tried?

The body contact was a point of emphasis at some point in the last 7 years - I just can't remember how recently. I remember watching video that they show the refs about the body contact, and it's still tough to call - as it's all on intent then. It's not as easy as it looks I know to be a ref. And, I (and others) shouldn't be so hard on them.

So - to some degree - they have employed the video option before - but not to the full suggested potential extent.

What it will ultimately come down to is calling intent on body contact. If the intent is to body check, then it's a penalty. If not, it's not, but sometimes it gets called anyway for the size disparity and resulting fall of weaker players, etc. as cited earlier. We've all seen players literally run at other players, hit them, fall down, and the player they were running at gets called for roughing, checking, etc. just for standing there and taking the "hit" because the checker fell and the target didn't...

But, again, coaches/spectators rarely have a better vantage point than the officials, and ultimately it's up to the officials what constitutes breaking the rules (penalty/no penalty). It's not easy to be a G HS Hockey ref - that's for certain!

It all comes down to the officials. I feel that obstruction and clutch and grab should be called all of the time. It could end up ruining the girls hockey game. Take a look at boys HS hockey. How many of the best players are allowed to skate free and show their talent and skill.

But it all comes down to the officals. Lets face it, the best officials work the boys games or quickly move to the women's college game. Also it is not uncommon to see new officials in the playoffs. These guys come over from the boys and they call the games differently.

My wish would be for the refs to allow more contact, but to call obstruction and the clutching.

Roman Legion wrote:My wish would be for the refs to allow more contact, but to call obstruction and the clutching.

Agreed.

from the June 8, 2006, issue of Let’s Play Hockey.


http://www.letsplayhockey.com/896blatherwick.html

The myth of invisible referees


By Jack Blatherwick

Let’s Play Hockey Columnist



Speaking on the radio before a recent NHL playoff game, this Hall-of-Fame player expressed the same opinion we hear often: “In the playoffs, the refs should be invisible. They should try not to have a big impact on the outcome — especially in the third period and overtime.”

Maybe he was upset that his favorite team made an early exit and the players were now chopping up the golf course like they had chopped their opponents a couple weeks before.

Actually, his comments expressed the view of many of us. We’d like the players to decide the outcome, not refs. But, when the officials bury their whistle, the players who decide the outcome are the most prolific cheaters.

The idea of invisible referees is a myth. The reality is that officials will always have an impact on the game. Either they call it by the rule book, and the outcome is decided by skillful players; or the whistle is buried, and the outcome is determined by cheaters.

We have many pseudonyms in hockey — words like “character” or “grit” or “toughness” that are used to replace the politically incorrect, but more accurate description — cheating.

Two years ago, “good solid defense” meant “good hook or slash,” and “backchecking” meant “put your stick in his gut and let him pull you back to the D-zone.”

Coaches didn’t say, “Go out there and interfere,” but that’s what they meant by good defense.

I recall the response of a WCHA official when I asked in a quiet moment away from the arena, “How can such good refs let the stick work and interference go to this extent? Are they required by the league to keep the number of penalties equal for each team?”

“It’s simple,” he said. “If we called penalties by the rule book, the top two teams would dominate every game, and we’d lose our jobs.”

Well, the NHL refs had the courage this season to call it by the book. The result was exciting, skillful, fast, hockey — and it was just as tough and gritty as it has always been. Great hits, battles along the wall, and even an occasional fight — fewer, perhaps, than the days when teams each had their designated goons, but fights that brought fans out of their seats, just like the shootouts.

The difference is that “good solid defense” required defensemen to skate — mirroring the forward step-for-step — to maintain body position. Forecheckers couldn’t just reach out for a stick when they were too lazy to take that extra step, and backcheckers — well, they had to hustle back 200 feet. They could no longer hitch up and coast back like a trailer.

In the Olympics, the U.S. and Canadian teams made early exits — at the same time as Switzerland. The reason? Players who couldn’t defend — couldn’t forecheck — couldn’t compete for pucks without taking penalties.

The “new” NHL featured the awesome talents of young stars like Ovechkin and Crosby. If these two had entered the league a couple years ago, they would have been hooked, held, and slashed to death. Without rules enforcement, all we’d see is domination by someone with inferior skills.

How fun is it to watch Tiger Woods? But if a hack like me could nullify his skills by cheating, he’d never get on TV. We’d just see the hackers instead. If sprinters could start before the gun, even I could waddle down the track ahead of the best in the world — but we watch the Olympics because we want to see the fastest sprinters, not the best cheaters.

The word “sport” implies a competition of skills, courage, athleticism, and effort, but when we tolerate cheating, our game can no longer be called a sport.

After the first few NHL games in the fall, the question spread around the league, “Are they really going to call it this way all season? How about the playoffs?”

They’ve answered, “Yes, and if your team can’t stay out of the penalty box, you’re going to be watching from the sidelines at playoff time.”

We’re watching. The Washington Capitals took more penalties than their opponents — especially the first half of the season. The opponents also had the puck more, and I’ll bet that if we had accurate statistics of such things, we’d see that the number of penalties for any team is inversely proportional to the time of possession.

Wow. Read that again. It means the NHL refs have succeeded in putting the domination back in the hands of those who earn it with skill — call it the Tiger Woods syndrome.

If we want to produce more Ovechkin’s and Crosby’s in the future, we better copy the lead of the NHL at all levels — even college and junior hockey. Well, maybe that’s a little too ambitious for a start.

Let’s begin with high school and bantam hockey. Enforce the rules as they’re written, especially the use of sticks to impede offensive players. Then skills will determine the outcome — just as they have in the Stanley Cup playoffs.



Jack Blatherwick, Ph.D., is a physiologist for the Washington Capitals, and has held the same post for other NHL and Olympic teams. Check out Blatherwick’s website at www.overspeed.info.

Intent is the key to making the call or not.

If player A and B are racing to the puck and player A gets in front of player B and blocks her out while still facing the puck with the intent of gaining possession, no infraction will be called on body contact. If player A raisers her stick off the ice to her waist line, looks back at player B, leans in towards player B and then makes contact, It is obstruction. Her intent and focus was on Player B and the contact was intentional.

If player A has the puck and player B catches up to her, steps in front (between player A and the puck she is carrying) keeps her stick on the ice with the intent of taking the puck away and makes a small amount of body contact, No infraction will be called. If player B has not gained position (does not get in front of player A) or if her leans in to player A with the intent to push or check her off the puck or if in any way she shows that she is not attempting to play the puck but rather is playing the body, then she will be called for checking. Her intent was to play the body, not the puck.

If player A is moving up ice (no puck) and player B is a defensemen backing up in front of her. Player B may step in front of A forcing her to go around. Player B owns the ice that she occupies. Player A cannot try to go threw her. Player A has to skate around her. If player B stops in front of player A and they make contact then it’s a whole new ball game. Player B can in no way lean into or prepare for contact in a non-puck-possession situation. An interference call will be made if player B's intent is slow player A down with any kind of intentional contact. Player A also cannot force contact by not changing direction. I admit a call against player A in this situation will be rare but it does happen.

As for the stick work. Any time a player uses a stick which is not on the ice to block out, hold back or slow down an opponent a call should be made. The intent is not to play the puck since the stick is not on the ice.

I could go on forever but the point (I hope) has been made.

Jethrotull wrote:Intent is the key to making the call or not.

If player A and B are racing to the puck and player A gets in front of player B and blocks her out while still facing the puck with the intent of gaining possession, no infraction will be called on body contact. If player A raisers her stick off the ice to her waist line, looks back at player B, leans in towards player B and then makes contact, It is obstruction. Her intent and focus was on Player B and the contact was intentional.

Agreed!

Jethrotull wrote:If player A has the puck and player B catches up to her, steps in front (between player A and the puck she is carrying) keeps her stick on the ice with the intent of taking the puck away and makes a small amount of body contact, No infraction will be called. If player B has not gained position (does not get in front of player A) or if her leans in to player A with the intent to push or check her off the puck or if in any way she shows that she is not attempting to play the puck but rather is playing the body, then she will be called for checking. Her intent was to play the body, not the puck.

Agreed again, but this is where the discretion of the official becomes important. i.e. define "small amount" of body contact - and you can't as it is situational, as it should be. I think that often spectacular and/or high speed collisions result in calls here when at times it may just be that in the situaiton it was an appropriate amount of body contact resulting in "big" collision due to full speed of the situation.

Also - we see problems with the result of a "small" amount of contact on "small" players - especially when it's a larger player making that contact. When they fall down the arm goes up too easily sometimes I think - but that's a tough call to make...

Jethrotull wrote:If player A is moving up ice (no puck) and player B is a defensemen backing up in front of her. Player B may step in front of A forcing her to go around. Player B owns the ice that she occupies. Player A cannot try to go threw her. Player A has to skate around her. If player B stops in front of player A and they make contact then it’s a whole new ball game. Player B can in no way lean into or prepare for contact in a non-puck-possession situation. An interference call will be made if player B's intent is slow player A down with any kind of intentional contact. Player A also cannot force contact by not changing direction. I admit a call against player A in this situation will be rare but it does happen.

Agreed 100% and most good coaches should coach their kids to force the player to skate around to buy time/space for other players on the rink (i.e. forcheck situaitons when puck is dumped and D partner or D retrieves puck and D partner or F buys them that time by forcing longer route to puck).

I should say that some of the contact in these situaitons was allowed more a few yers ago, but due to the NHL level cleaning up the game, now we see that called more at all levels.

And, right on the oncoming/forchecking player rarely getting called for contact in the situation above. Although, I have seen it - but very rare indeed.

Jethrotull wrote:As for the stick work. Any time a player uses a stick which is not on the ice to block out, hold back or slow down an opponent a call should be made. The intent is not to play the puck since the stick is not on the ice.

I could go on forever but the point (I hope) has been made.

Agreed 100%.

The bottom line I think is that if a player truly makes a play for the puck and then incidental body contact occurs, it should be OK. BUT, how do you determine this as being incidental??? It's all based on intent, and hard to call that when you don't know what a player is thinking. Sometimes it's hard to "read" the result and make the call based on intent I guess...

Refs have a tough job.

Obviously the refs cannot read a players mind so they read body language and factor in the situation and the speed of the play. A checking call at full speed may not be called at a slower speed because the out come (a player falling down and being taken out of the play at full speed). Also it changes if it's along the boards, in front of the net or open ice. Taking away a scoring chance is always reason to make a call. Along the boards calls are subject to whether the intent was to board a player. Open ice is where many players are intersecting. Inadvertent contact in open ice happens quite often as they are coming at you from all directions and you do not always see everyone.

The best refs out there have many years experience, know the rules and have played and/or coached for many years so they understand the situations that happen.

By the way, neither size or strength matter in making a call. If a player is very big and cannot control their play, they are not penalized for being big. They are penalized for breaking the rules. Small players need to learn to play BIG and big players need to learn to control themselves.

Agred 100% but just a thought on this last point:

Jethrotull wrote:By the way, neither size or strength matter in making a call. If a player is very big and cannot control their play, they are not penalized for being big. They are penalized for breaking the rules. Small players need to learn to play BIG and big players need to learn to control themselves.

Can I add the word "should" to this?

"neither size or strength SHOULD matter in making a call."

I agree, but I think we've all seen two players competing for a puck, and when the smaller one goes down in competition for the puck the arm goes up for "roughing" or "checking." If size disparity is the reason for the smaller player falling during clean play while competing for puck, no penalty please! That's all I'm getting at. Most calls are right, but it's especially tough to call in those size disparity circumstances when crowd/smaller player's coach gets going when smaller player goes down incidentally. Sometimes I think that play Outcome (fall) is called more than Intent (clean incidental play). If intent is what is judged, this is right. If intent is clean play, and outcome is opposing player falls due to size disparity - that's not a penalty.

Adjusting for what is going to be allowed by the officials is one thing (as discused above), but I would never coach my bigger players to play differently when playing against smaller players.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 864306.htm

'New' NHL is here to stay
TOM POWERS
The biggest shocker wasn't that a team based in Raleigh, N.C., won the Stanley Cup. Or that Peter Laviolette, a flop behind the bench of Team USA's Olympic squad, was the winning coach. It was that the referees did not swallow their whistles and stand by idly during the playoffs. Instead, they called obstruction penalties the way they did during the regular season.

Clearly the "new" NHL is here to stay.

In the past, the refs seemed terrified of affecting the outcome of a playoff game. If one skater clubbed another over the head with his stick, the officials would be sure to find a way to even up the call. For example, he might give Player A two minutes for high sticking, and Player B two minutes for excessive bleeding.

This time, although they let some of the big hits go, which is what the fans want to see anyway, they were good about calling the infractions that hindered the flow of the game.

"Yes, you are exactly right and I think it is great for the game," Wild coach Jacques Lemaire said. "I was afraid before the playoffs. But they wanted to stick with it and keep calling it. From now on, this is the type of hockey you are going to see."

Said Wild general manager Doug Risebrough: "This was a serious and coordinated effort by the league. I applaud them."

The emphasis on unfettered skating clearly was a hit with the cash customers throughout the first post-lockout season. The league saw record revenue flow into its cash registers. As a result, the salary cap reportedly will be raised from $39 million to $44 million.

Not that the NHL still doesn't have problems. Monday's Game 7 was a terrific showcase for the sport. Televised by NBC, it featured compelling action and an electric atmosphere. As important, the announcers were up to the task, conveying excitement and dispersing pertinent information.

But most of the time, NHL games are televised nationally on the obscure Outdoor Life Network. That means it is sandwiched between programs such as "Moose Hunting with Cousin Fred" and "100 Ways to Enjoy Pine Cones."

The game just doesn't fit on this network. It's an awkward marriage.

The new rules, designed to create more offense, for the most part worked very well. They still need some tweaking, however. Most coaches I've talked with hate it that their defensemen are virtually powerless to clear the crease. That has to change.

Also, it's absurd to fine a coach $10,000 if one of his players instigates a fight in the final five minutes. What is he supposed to do, run out and break it up? It just inhibits a coach from sending his grinders out in the final minutes of a lopsided game.

And that's exactly when a coach wants his fourth line out there, to keep his best players out of harm's way when the game's outcome no longer is in doubt. But now those guys are on the bench for fear that there might be trouble.

There was an incident in Chicago last season when the Blackhawks' Matthew Barnaby, a real pest who actually can skate a little bit, cruised over to the visitors' bench and taunted Wild players. This was in the final minutes of a game in which the Wild were way ahead.

Lemaire was very concerned that one of his players was going to pop Barnaby to shut him up, even though Barnaby deserved a good punch in the nose.

"Then that's $10,000," he noted a couple of days later.

Overall, the new rules made for more scoring chances and increased interest. Now the league enters another chapter in its grand experiment. Starting July 1, there will be free agents everywhere as a result of the latest collective bargaining agreement.

We'll see if the salary cap protects the long-term financial future of certain teams. The worst-case scenario is that spendthrift general managers take a page from the National Football League and find so many ways around the cap that front office "capologists" become a necessity.

Lemaire, meanwhile, was glued to his television throughout the playoffs, watching just about every game. He is delighted by how the new rules have created more interest.

"I talk to a lot of people," he said. "They feel very excited."

It's clear that the just-concluded season marked the beginning of something new and mostly good.

Tom Powers can be reached at tpowers@pioneerpress.com

I've heard coach’s state to players that they have to "play tougher" and "play bigger" against bigger teams/players but they rarely teach how to play smaller around smaller teams/players. It is a factor and should be addressed. If you prefer not to teach this aspect of the game then you will have to live with the consequences.

I have read the rulebook more times then I care to keep track of and nowhere does it mention "size" or "strength". Speed is referred too only a few times in regards to boarding and charging. If you are a big player going against a smaller player you better have worked on blocking out the smaller player in practice because if you check them you will get a call. If you are a smaller player and are out of control trying to keep up you will be falling down allot. Do not expect to draw a penalty just because you fell down.

Reading intent is a skill just like skating and takes years to master.

Agreed.

Point of clarification:

Two players going full speed after puck. No intent to play the other player, just to get to puck One is 5'10" 150lbs one is 4'10" 90lbs. They make incidental contact as they arrive simultaneously at the puck, smaller one falls.

Penalty?

My point: In this situation -

Would I "coach" the bigger player to play this differently (go in slower, etc.?). No, as they will lose the race to the puck (and likely not gain possession either). In fact, equal shot at getting a checking or hurting someone I think if they arrive late vs. first/simultaneously.

Let me pose this to other coaches:

1) Would you honestly tell your bigger players to "pull up" when they see a smaller player in a race for a loose puck?

2) Would you tell a bigger player not to play at full strength using their body size for position advantage in a scrum for a puck along the boards? Meaning, would you tell them not to have any (or to have limited) incidental physical contact while going after a loose puck?

Maybe I'm a poor coach, but I coach players to play at full speed using their full capabilities and physical attributes no matter the size/strength of the opponent. BUT - they do have to have the intent of playing the puck at all times within the rules of the game - and not checking/roughing someone... the same applies for smaller players too - playing BIG isn't playing "Cheap because you're small and can maybe get away with it."

Maybe the point I'm trying to make goes back to the statement:

"neither size or strength SHOULD matter in making a call."

As said, this (size or strength) is not in the rule book.

The problem with this though is that in G HS Hockey a lack of checking seems to allow for the ideas of "size" and "strength" to enter in to evaluation of "intent" based on "outcome" more than these things should for roughing/checking calls on bigger players.

Because a player falls (outcome) due to size disparity, doesn't necessarily mean that the intent of the other player was to check/rough them.

Unlike some other aspects of the game, I'm not certain as to if the outcome should be the biggest determining factor. Tripping may be more easy. Even if unintentional, it gets called due to outcome more I think, and we can accept that even when it wasn't intentional (obvious that someone went down with opposing players stick in their skates/legs). A trip is a trip is a trip, right???

Calling checking/roughing in G HS Hockey, not as easy and I guess I don't personally accept it being called on outcome (a player falling down). It must be called on intent, and as said, "Reading intent is a skill just like skating and takes years to master." Maybe that's why so many complain about officiating, as they don't understand how hard it is to master the reading of intent and how it may play a greater role in calling G HS Hockey games checking/roughing size disparity situations than say a tripping, etc.

You missed the point. Know one expects the bigger player to pull-up or slow down. There are a dozen or so different ways to win a battle. Speed, Block out, Stick lift, stick cover, fake, tip, missdirection, ect...... All I'm saying is teach them as many skills and options as possible and also the basics on when to use each one. Kids learn fast. Obviously a block out with contact (checking) by a bigger player on a smaller player is risky. Try a stick lift. The bigger player has the advantage on that move. Intentional contact (Checking) on a smaller player then yourself is not your only choice but all to often it is the 1st choice. Rules are designed for fairness and safety. If you don't agree then try to change the rules or live with the consequences.

I guess I did miss what you were trying to say. You are saying that when size disparity exists don't use that to your advantage? Stick-lift instead?

I would still say though that using your physical attributes when you have that advantage is what's best, but that doesn't constitute body checking obvioulsy. In fact, I believe that general position, how you approach the puck, etc. is important no matter what the size of your opponent.

I teach my players to use their body legally (and at full speed) to ensure that they aren't ever beat entirely in a battle for the puck. This is why the size disparity phantom check/rough calls bother me greatly.

If they can do the other things you mentioned, by all means do in the correct situaitons. But, with those other moves, what is the highest percentage play that will most likely NOT result in the opposing player beating them entirely the majority of the time? I'm guessing not a stick-lift alone.

I'm not sure where on here I have said that I don't agree with the rules, but if that's the impression I left, I too have been misunderstood. I just want the game called by the rules and not in favor of any specific-size players.

Nope, use your size and strength by all means. Use all your strengths. Mix them up and keep everyone guessing. Just understand that knocking down a smaller player may draw a call. Each ref will see it different and that is a fact that will never change. Players and coaches have different styles and so do refs. Nuff said. See ya on the ice come fall.

Gotcha. Take it easy on us OK!