PDA

View Full Version : Contact to the Head



Pages : [1] 2

J.D.
11-02-2010, 10:08 AM
Have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and have not been able to get a clarification. If I was a subscriber, I would certainly read:

Tuesday Morning Quarterback: Gray area in head contact

I'm not, but I can guess on what it says. Basically, I was under the impression that any contact to the head penalty would be an automatic five minute major and game misconduct according to the new rule. Is this true or not? I hate the new rule as it's written, but the bigger point is I have seen absolutely no consistency with the refs (shocker).

1. I saw a Minnesota player leave his skates and elbow an Omaha player in the head. Ref clearly saw it and called a two minute penalty.

2. Philip Samuelsson was given a 5 and GM for CTH

3. Merrimack player elbows BC player in head and is given two for elbowing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't elbowing...contact to the head?

Am I misunderstanding the new rule or if there a hesitation to call the five minute major and GM? Either way, this new rule is already a mess IMO.

goldy_331
11-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Sooo, you want the rule to be called the way it is written??:confused:

Why should this rule be interpreted any different than all the other rules in the book? Ever read the interference rule or the hooking rule? (although they have tightened up the calling of both of those in recent years)

FlagDUDE08
11-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Have been thinking about this for a couple weeks and have not been able to get a clarification. If I was a subscriber, I would certainly read:

Tuesday Morning Quarterback: Gray area in head contact

I'm not, but I can guess on what it says. Basically, I was under the impression that any contact to the head penalty would be an automatic five minute major and game misconduct according to the new rule. Is this true or not? I hate the new rule as it's written, but the bigger point is I have seen absolutely no consistency with the refs (shocker).

1. I saw a Minnesota player leave his skates and elbow an Omaha player in the head. Ref clearly saw it and called a two minute penalty.

2. Philip Samuelsson was given a 5 and GM for CTH

3. Merrimack player elbows BC player in head and is given two for elbowing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't elbowing...contact to the head?

Am I misunderstanding the new rule or if there a hesitation to call the five minute major and GM? Either way, this new rule is already a mess IMO.

I would guess the refs don't want to call the 5 + Game. The same thing with "post-whistle altercations" (usually they call a double minor for roughing and hitting after the whistle), as well as when they tried the automatic 5 + Game for CFB.

J.D.
11-02-2010, 10:50 AM
Sooo, you want the rule to be called the way it is written??:confused:

Why should this rule be interpreted any different than all the other rules in the book? Ever read the interference rule or the hooking rule? (although they have tightened up the calling of both of those in recent years)

No, I don't want it called at all. I hate the new rule. What I'm really asking for is consistency. Either call it or don't. It's the only fair way to handle it. Is that too much to ask?


I would guess the refs don't want to call the 5 + Game. The same thing with "post-whistle altercations" (usually they call a double minor for roughing and hitting after the whistle), as well as when they tried the automatic 5 + Game for CFB.

Usually with a new rule you see immediate enforcement. Most agree that the rule is stupid, but it makes it look even dumber when in the first year of the rule there is no consistency with the refs in calling it.

FlagDUDE08
11-02-2010, 10:56 AM
Usually with a new rule you see immediate enforcement. Most agree that the rule is stupid, but it makes it look even dumber when in the first year of the rule there is no consistency with the refs in calling it.

I would definitely agree with this in the case of minor penalties. However you're talking about throwing them out. Let's tack onto that with the fact that there's a mandatory suspension after 3 game misconducts. Refs don't like to throw the players out, I wouldn't think (unless it's a reputation ref, but that's another argument for another thread).

Granted, in the games I've been watching, I haven't seen too many CTH occurrences, nor have I seen/heard it called in any of RPI's games.

Salvo1017
11-02-2010, 10:56 AM
No, I don't want it called at all. I hate the new rule. What I'm really asking for is consistency. Either call it or don't. It's the only fair way to handle it. Is that too much to ask?

Completely agree, personally I don't think an elbow to the head (if done without malice and without intent) should be an automatic 5 minute major, however if it's written as such it should be called as such.

Puck Swami
11-02-2010, 10:57 AM
We train and pay the refs for their judgment on the ice, and that's where the rule needs to be applied with skill and intention.

Obviously contact to the head happens all the time in hockey, with varying degrees of intensity. There is a very fine line between an attempt to intimidate (which any coach will tell you is part of hockey) and an attempt to injure. The speed of the game is so fast that a guy lining up a check can't always adjust in time to a change of position by the guy about to be checked.

If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

northeastern
11-02-2010, 10:57 AM
"Never leave your feet to give a check"..

this should be enforced vigirously & with stiff punishment by all refs in NCAA gms. Wishful thinking (on consistency)..but the NCAA has the power to make this a priority.

Salvo1017
11-02-2010, 11:00 AM
If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

Some great points in this thread so far, I agree. I think college hockey should go to half shields...that being said you know there'll be outrage as soon as the first set of teeth come flying out of a mouth.

St. Clown
11-02-2010, 11:29 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't elbowing...contact to the head?

No, elbowing can occur to the shoulders and chest, too. It's the act of bringing up your arm, crooking it at the elbow, and laying it into an opponent during the process of a check. Trust me, I got called for this a lot as a kid. I know it well now as an adult.

J.D.
11-02-2010, 11:53 AM
No, elbowing can occur to the shoulders and chest, too. It's the act of bringing up your arm, crooking it at the elbow, and laying it into an opponent during the process of a check. Trust me, I got called for this a lot as a kid. I know it well now as an adult.

Fair enough. I was being somewhat sarcastic in that the elbows I've seen (and almost always) are to the head. Bottom line for me: the new rule is stupid, but either call it or don't. i want consistency. if they didn't call it at all i'd be perfectly fine with that.

czeckthebody
11-02-2010, 12:19 PM
Like most calls in hockey there has to be some judgment on the part of the referees. If a ref feels that a player was trying to injure another player that should be a game misconduct with no hesitation at all on the ref's part. Players trying to injure other players don't deserve to play. There are guys in the NHL like that--they should be kicked out of the league. It's like anything else in life--judges, refs, government officials, business managers--if the people in charge have brains then it works. Any fan can tell the difference between a dirty hit with intent to injure and a clean one. If a ref can't tell the difference he shoud find something else to do.

J.D.
11-02-2010, 12:40 PM
Like most calls in hockey there has to be some judgment on the part of the referees. If a ref feels that a player was trying to injure another player that should be a game misconduct with no hesitation at all on the ref's part. Players trying to injure other players don't deserve to play. There are guys in the NHL like that--they should be kicked out of the league. It's like anything else in life--judges, refs, government officials, business managers--if the people in charge have brains then it works. Any fan can tell the difference between a dirty hit with intent to injure and a clean one. If a ref can't tell the difference he shoud find something else to do.

Completely agree, which is why I think the way the rule was written/explained is stupid. There should be something in there about the contact to the head having to be an intent to injure.

MaizeRage
11-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen.

And why do you think that is?

scsutommyboy
11-02-2010, 01:39 PM
And why do you think that is?

I don't think insurance companies are stopping it. I highly doubt premiums would go up at all if they switched. It is the ignorant administators that would stop this from happening.

scsutommyboy
11-02-2010, 02:03 PM
We train and pay the refs for their judgment on the ice, and that's where the rule needs to be applied with skill and intention.

Obviously contact to the head happens all the time in hockey, with varying degrees of intensity. There is a very fine line between an attempt to intimidate (which any coach will tell you is part of hockey) and an attempt to injure. The speed of the game is so fast that a guy lining up a check can't always adjust in time to a change of position by the guy about to be checked.

If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

I agree with you 100% about getting rid of the full shield and have been saying it for years. The "Cage courage" you speak of is 100% correct. I think I am going to steal that from you and start using it.:)

The one thing I will dissagree with you on is the insurance industry stopping the NCAA from switching. There are two different types of insurance that comes into play when it comes to a hockey team. The first is liability insurance. This is needed in case someone dies. Since someone dying during a game is so rare taking the shield off isn't going to cause the premiums to go up. There is way to much data to show there is no Correlation between having a half shield or a full mask and dying on the ice.

The second type of insurance that comes into play is medical coverage. This is where people think teams are more likely to see a increase in premiums do to people getting hit in the face with pucks and sticks. Being in this industry I can tell you the rates probably wouldn't go up at if they went to a half shield. The rating models used wouldn't take a factor like half or full shield and load teams premiums because ot it. The administrators are the problem and I don't see them changing because our ignorant public opinion is the full mask is safer.

fiqure8
11-02-2010, 02:18 PM
We train and pay the refs for their judgment on the ice, and that's where the rule needs to be applied with skill and intention.

Obviously contact to the head happens all the time in hockey, with varying degrees of intensity. There is a very fine line between an attempt to intimidate (which any coach will tell you is part of hockey) and an attempt to injure. The speed of the game is so fast that a guy lining up a check can't always adjust in time to a change of position by the guy about to be checked.

If you really want to change the culture, remove the facemasks on all but goalies. You'll see much smarter hitting and lower sticks, too. The "cage courage" of today's ultra protected player gives any size player an air of invinceability on the ice. Of course, the insurance companies won't let this happen. So we have guys that are too big and too fast and too 'protected' running around on sheet that is too small to contain them.

Introduce fighting in the game so the goons can get out their frustrations !

MikeAnderson
11-02-2010, 03:34 PM
I don't think insurance companies are stopping it. I highly doubt premiums would go up at all if they switched. It is the ignorant administators that would stop this from happening.

Isn't the rules committee considering impletementing the half-shield (or, perhaps more accurately, 3/4 shield)? I seem to remember that in the late offseason kvetching.

FlagDUDE08
11-02-2010, 03:36 PM
Isn't the rules committee considering impletementing the half-shield (or, perhaps more accurately, 3/4 shield)? I seem to remember that in the late offseason kvetching.

I thought they were doing that for the men only this year. Or is that only for the exhibition games?

FlagDUDE08
11-02-2010, 03:40 PM
Introduce fighting in the game so the goons can get out their frustrations !

Hasn't the NC$$ been trying to get more people to the games anyway? ;)