Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Utterkaos94

Contact vs. Checking

Recommended Posts

I play in a D5 league near me, and it's a no contact league like all others. What qualifies as a check and what just qualifies as contact? There are quite a few guys in our league that should be playing D4, if not D3, so we get pretty mad when they're doing dangles around our teammates that are just trying to stay upright. Obviously we aren't going to be able to steal the puck from them with our sticks, so is there a legal way we can steal the puck from them? If a guy is skating towards me with the puck, can I get into his path and not move, knocking him over, or does that count as a check?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on the ref. You can't play hockey if there is no contact allowed, the game results in frequent contact between players. A high level no-check game can even have a significant amount of contact that does not meet the definition of a check. However, at a lower level, most refs tend to call nothing or everything and it's hard to find a middle ground. I played against a guy last week and put a shoulder right into his chest and dropped him. I got a penalty but he didn't try to go coast to coast again. I hate having to do stuff like that but the penalty as been worth it for me as often as not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the refs don't call anything contact related. I don't want to hurt anyone obviously, but it gets really annoying when they taunt you with the puck and you can't hit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple games ago I had a guy coming into our zone with speed and I was skating backwards (poorly) to stay in front of him. Being a forward I wasn't exactly sure how to play the guy so once he crossed the blue line I decided I'd let him come far enough and just... stopped skating. I didn't do anything other than just simply stop.

He runs right into me (beginner league do of course he has his head down) and I get called for body contact.

I've taken some weird penalties before but that one was hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Chippa. By stopping your motion and standing still, you are entitled to your ice. If there is intentional dropping of a shoulder or sticking out your hip, or even moving into the skater's skating lane, that would be more along the lines of a check. Standing still is more body position than anything else, and using the fact that the opposition is skating with his head down against him is just smart hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If OptimusReim skated into the opponent's lane and simply stopped, it's interference, not body contact, correct?

Keep your feet moving. Angle them to the outside.

If you're a forward and aggressively back-checking, take a cue from your D and poke-check them (of course, I'm 6'-6" with a stick to match...so I poke check a LOT of people when the opportunity arises).

I agree with Chadd. It seems to be all or nothing for most refs. You just have to find out what is appropriate for how it is called at your rink. Our games tend to be physical with lots of shoulder contact and pushing, but no real checking. I love it. Hooking, slashing, tripping, etc. do get called (as they should).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, I'd think the difference between a 'check' and 'contact' is the creation of an impact, in the same way that a punch differs from a push. In theory, it's hard to distinguish them, but in practise it really isn't.

The key word in chippa's post was "basically." In terms of relative motion, there is no difference between the two situations. If players A and B are moving in the same direct at 30kph, and player A stops dead, the impact is the same as if player A had charged player B at 30kph. You could also get on a guy's hip and drive him into the board at full speed, then claim you were just skating to the boards, and he got in the way. We might like to draw a distinction because of intent, but it's largely meaningless. In no-check hockey the players agree to avoid impacts. If two players are heading straight for the puck at top speed, they are both 'entitled to that ice', in one sense, but in no-check hockey they have a duty to avoid the possible impact.

That said, the more important question is, as other have noted, how the refs call the game. The bigger the impact, the more likely the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If OptimusReim skated into the opponent's lane and simply stopped, it's interference, not body contact, correct?

Keep your feet moving. Angle them to the outside.

If you're a forward and aggressively back-checking, take a cue from your D and poke-check them (of course, I'm 6'-6" with a stick to match...so I poke check a LOT of people when the opportunity arises).

I agree with Chadd. It seems to be all or nothing for most refs. You just have to find out what is appropriate for how it is called at your rink. Our games tend to be physical with lots of shoulder contact and pushing, but no real checking. I love it. Hooking, slashing, tripping, etc. do get called (as they should).

I agree, I was expecting IF ANYTHING for them to call it interference. But even then, only if I initiated the contact. Either way, I was shocked when he called it a check.

Generally, I'd think the difference between a 'check' and 'contact' is the creation of an impact, in the same way that a punch differs from a push. In theory, it's hard to distinguish them, but in practise it really isn't.

The key word in chippa's post was "basically." In terms of relative motion, there is not difference between the two situations. If players A and B are moving in the same direct at 30kph, and player A stops dead, the impact is the same as if player A had charged player B at 30kph. You could also get on a guy's hip and drive him into the board at full speed, then claim you were just skating to the boards, and he got in the way. We might like to draw a distinction because of intent, but it's largely meaningless. In no-check hockey the players agree to avoid impacts. If two players are heading straight for the puck at top speed, they are both 'entitled to that ice', in one sense, but in no-check hockey they have a duty to avoid the possible impact.

That said, the more important question is, as other have noted, how the refs call the game. The bigger the impact, the more likely the call.

I've been called for body contact a couple times over the past couple seasons. Usually in cases where there is a collision and they go down and I don't. 99% of the time it's accidental (though not always :laugh: )

I guess in a low level league it's not surprising that when they see a player go down they make assumptions on what caused it, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to be called for it just because you didn't fall as well. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I was expecting IF ANYTHING for them to call it interference. But even then, only if I initiated the contact. Either way, I was shocked when he called it a check.

I had a similar call last year when I was called for tripping, and I made no contact with my opponent's feet (and he's a good buddy of mine). I skated right into his lane...but didn't keep my feet moving. Pretty clearly interference, but I got a tripping call.

It's not like we're playing in the NHL and a lot of money is riding on our games. haha.

We aren't perfect, neither are the refs!

Here's a great video on angling. Skip the drill stuff at the start and go to 8:30. Textbook clean physical, but non-check angling:v

go back to the drills at the start of the video if you want to find a way to practice it.

If I have an opponent go down (if they're smaller than me--i.e. half the guys and all women), I'll typically stop and help them up. It's easier than taking 2min in the box!

If they're my size and ability, the refs usually call it looser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar call last year when I was called for tripping, and I made no contact with my opponent's feet (and he's a good buddy of mine). I skated right into his lane...but didn't keep my feet moving. Pretty clearly interference, but I got a tripping call.

It's not like we're playing in the NHL and a lot of money is riding on our games. haha.

We aren't perfect, neither are the refs!

Here's a great video on angling. Skip the drill stuff at the start and go to 8:30. Textbook clean physical, but non-check angling:v

go back to the drills at the start of the video if you want to find a way to practice it.

If I have an opponent go down (if they're smaller than me--i.e. half the guys and all women), I'll typically stop and help them up. It's easier than taking 2min in the box!

If they're my size and ability, the refs usually call it looser.

That's how you know if it was intentional or not, whether I make sure they're okay before skating away ;)

I don't really have any way of practicing things like that, but thanks. I know generally what I should have been doing but it was a position I've never found myself in before so I just decided if he wanted to go to the net that he'd have to go around me. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, I'd think the difference between a 'check' and 'contact' is the creation of an impact,

That's generally how I would describe it as well. There is a huge difference between angling someone into the boards and boarding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's generally how I would describe it as well. There is a huge difference between angling someone into the boards and boarding them.

What about contact with the puck first and then body contact after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll match speed and pretty much let them skate into me, kind of like cushioning them. Only works open ice, though. Along the boards, forget it, if you angle and bump them more often than not I've seen penalties called. I've found it depends on what level you're playing at as to how much they'll let go. In D3 (the highest division at our rink), D4 they tend to let it go so long as you're not flat-out checking someone. D5 has been hit or miss and D6 if they don't call it, people tend to lose their head. I've been hit from behind, etc. after simply slowing an opponent down, not obstructing them or holding them, but simply not letting them have a free pass to the net with the puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From coaching youth hockey I have been exposed to a lot of USA hockey videos and materials on what constitutes legal contact in non-body checking leagues. When body checking was moved from Squirt to Bantam, USA Hockey even went out of their way to re-emphasize and in some cases expand what was legal body contact. However, I think in practice, most referees, at least in St. Louis and most of the cities we've traveled to, call it a lot tighter than what the USA hockey materials would allow (in defense of the refs, the consequences of erring in that direction are probably a lot better than those of erring in the other direction). My son is now a bantam, so those situations are behind us, but they have been replaced with what is the difference between a check from behind and a pin and what constitutes interference. That personal interpretation aspect of refereeing is going to always be a part of hockey. You just have to recognize the standard of play of the level, league and game that you are playing in and quickly adapt to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about contact with the puck first and then body contact after?

When I'm calling a game, I try to read the body language of the player to determine his intent. If the guy makes a play on the puck and happens to make contact, good play. If the guy drops a shoulder and happens to touch the puck before he drills the other guy, penalty. More often than not, you can tell exactly what the guy is planning to do before he does it.

From coaching youth hockey I have been exposed to a lot of USA hockey videos and materials on what constitutes legal contact in non-body checking leagues. When body checking was moved from Squirt to Bantam, USA Hockey even went out of their way to re-emphasize and in some cases expand what was legal body contact. However, I think in practice, most referees, at least in St. Louis and most of the cities we've traveled to, call it a lot tighter than what the USA hockey materials would allow (in defense of the refs, the consequences of erring in that direction are probably a lot better than those of erring in the other direction). My son is now a bantam, so those situations are behind us, but they have been replaced with what is the difference between a check from behind and a pin and what constitutes interference. That personal interpretation aspect of refereeing is going to always be a part of hockey. You just have to recognize the standard of play of the level, league and game that you are playing in and quickly adapt to it.

It's much, much harder to call a high level non-checking game than the same level of play that does allow checking. If for no other reason than trying to correctly draw the line on acceptable contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I'm calling a game, I try to read the body language of the player to determine his intent. If the guy makes a play on the puck and happens to make contact, good play. If the guy drops a shoulder and happens to touch the puck before he drills the other guy, penalty. More often than not, you can tell exactly what the guy is planning to do before he does it.

It's much, much harder to call a high level non-checking game than the same level of play that does allow checking. If for no other reason than trying to correctly draw the line on acceptable contact.

I agree, intent is usually fairly obvious. Especially at lower levels where the players don't have the skills or experience to mask it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are various determinants and it's also possible other penalties could be called.

1) Most importantly, how much momentum did the hitter have? Come in at four miles per hour and slowly staple the player against the boards, that's contact. Come in at twelve miles per hour and create a more jarring collision, that's checking.

2) Where was the point of contact and was the puck played first? If I ram you into the boards, then take the puck from you, that's checking. If I cut in front of you without body contact to take the puck, yet you slam into me as a result, that's contact.

3) Did the hitter give the skater an opportunity to avoid the contact? If I stop five feet ahead of your path, you have room to avoid me. If I stop a foot in front of you, that's interference if the contact is little, and checking if the contact is excessive.

4) Would the skater have fallen on his own? If you have the edge on me, and I bump into you to angle you off, that's contact. If you have the edge on me, and I knock you over from the contact as I tried to angle you off, that's checking.

5) Did the hitter extend himself? This comes from my time coaching hockey and soccer, but I would teach the kids that if I push you with my shoulder or hands tucked in, that's contact. If I extend my arm fully and push you hard enough to knock you over, that's roughing.

Again, there are nuances, but the gist of it all is, "Was my contact hard enough to knock you over?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, intent is usually fairly obvious. Especially at lower levels where the players don't have the skills or experience to mask it.

The more experience you have as a ref, the easier it is to see, even at the higher levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt. There was a girl on my daughters' team, who was large (close to 170), angry and could skate. Six times over two seasons, I saw girls have to be helped off that she had hit; I know one team was filming her trying to get proof to have her banished. I know from my daughters that she would say in the locker room she was going to take number XX out, but I didn't need to know that, because it was obvious she was intentionally trying to hit players. However, what compounded the problem is one coach hadn't played in close to thirty years, while the other never played, so they would constantly say she was a victim of her size who was just making hockey plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone should have been sent to go play in a boys league for a game or two.

To the OP: In beer league its all such a crapshoot, all depends on the ref really. I've seen a lot of stuff go uncalled especially if its a higher skill player who obviously looks like he could handle a check. If a guy you're playing with is obviously a ringer usually the refs will let the players who are meant to be in the league get away with more than they would otherwise. IMO if you're playing against a guy that can skate circles around your entire team Its totally ok to force him to the outside and then stand there and let him run into you. I rarely see that sort of passive check get called.

NOW ... a lot of people who don't know what playing physical actually means assume that means they can be dirty and slash, hook and cross check the other player because they can't skate with them. Lower level adult leagues are filled with that. People don't know how to play physical without being dirty, get frustrated and start hacking away. A cross check is not a legal body check no matter what league it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOW ... a lot of people who don't know what playing physical actually means assume that means they can be dirty and slash, hook and cross check the other player because they can't skate with them. Lower level adult leagues are filled with that. People don't know how to play physical without being dirty, get frustrated and start hacking away. A cross check is not a legal body check no matter what league it is.

Wow, yes. There's a huge difference between matching speed, using correct body positioning to angle someone and just getting flat-out burnt in a foot race and using the stick to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night was a good example of good reffing. A player from the other team and I both go into the corner hard to play a puck on the board. A lot of physical contact but nothing cheep or dirty. They let us battle it out, which took awhile. No calls which surprised both of us. It was so good that after the puck came out we were both spent, did a fist bump and kept playing. Letting clean play go gives the players an idea where the ref's stand and helps keep the game clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...