In Youth Hockey, The Penalty Box Getting Crowded

[Chadd 916]

Only when the puck is nearby?  That's even worse.  What is the distance, 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet?  It's just a brutal rule to implement.

The question is "Are you making a play on the puck?" If the answer is no, there is a chance you are going to the box. In what way is tying up a stick when the puck is 10 feet away, making a play on the puck? Your only purpose in doing so is to interfere with the other player. I used to do it all the time, the rule changed so now I don't do it. It's not rocket surgery.

[chippa13 1844]

Only when the puck is nearby?  That's even worse.  What is the distance, 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet?  It's just a brutal rule to implement.

The question is "Are you making a play on the puck?" If the answer is no, there is a chance you are going to the box. In what way is tying up a stick when the puck is 10 feet away, making a play on the puck? Your only purpose in doing so is to interfere with the other player. I used to do it all the time, the rule changed so now I don't do it. It's not rocket surgery.

Simple, if another opponent is looking to make a pass to the guy you're covering, if a pointman is winding up for a slapper. This ain't field hockey, its ice hockey.

[KYHockey3 0]

Kids barely play 5-5 anymore.

i agree with you. I have seen lots of games this year that have been mostly played on power plays/penalty kills.

our high school hockey season will be interesting to see with all these penaltys

[Chadd 916]

Only when the puck is nearby?  That's even worse.  What is the distance, 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet?  It's just a brutal rule to implement.

The question is "Are you making a play on the puck?" If the answer is no, there is a chance you are going to the box. In what way is tying up a stick when the puck is 10 feet away, making a play on the puck? Your only purpose in doing so is to interfere with the other player. I used to do it all the time, the rule changed so now I don't do it. It's not rocket surgery.

Simple, if another opponent is looking to make a pass to the guy you're covering, if a pointman is winding up for a slapper. This ain't field hockey, its ice hockey.

If you can tie up any player that someone might pass the puck to, we're right back where we started allowing players to get mauled. A team can't make up for being slower or less talented like they could in th epast. It's all about skill development now and the coaches that can do that will win more games.

[chippa13 1844]

Only when the puck is nearby?  That's even worse.  What is the distance, 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet?  It's just a brutal rule to implement.

The question is "Are you making a play on the puck?" If the answer is no, there is a chance you are going to the box. In what way is tying up a stick when the puck is 10 feet away, making a play on the puck? Your only purpose in doing so is to interfere with the other player. I used to do it all the time, the rule changed so now I don't do it. It's not rocket surgery.

Simple, if another opponent is looking to make a pass to the guy you're covering, if a pointman is winding up for a slapper. This ain't field hockey, its ice hockey.

If you can tie up any player that someone might pass the puck to, we're right back where we started allowing players to get mauled. A team can't make up for being slower or less talented like they could in th epast. It's all about skill development now and the coaches that can do that will win more games.

Ummmmmm, where did I say anything other than lifting the stick? Be careful you don't lose your balance and fall off of that soapbox.

[Chadd 916]

Only when the puck is nearby?  That's even worse.  What is the distance, 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet?  It's just a brutal rule to implement.

The question is "Are you making a play on the puck?" If the answer is no, there is a chance you are going to the box. In what way is tying up a stick when the puck is 10 feet away, making a play on the puck? Your only purpose in doing so is to interfere with the other player. I used to do it all the time, the rule changed so now I don't do it. It's not rocket surgery.

Simple, if another opponent is looking to make a pass to the guy you're covering, if a pointman is winding up for a slapper. This ain't field hockey, its ice hockey.

If you can tie up any player that someone might pass the puck to, we're right back where we started allowing players to get mauled. A team can't make up for being slower or less talented like they could in th epast. It's all about skill development now and the coaches that can do that will win more games.

Ummmmmm, where did I say anything other than lifting the stick? Be careful you don't lose your balance and fall off of that soapbox.

I'll keep an eye on that. It still boils down to this, you're preventing the other guy from even being able to attempt to make a play on the puck while you aren;t making any attempt to play it yourself. You don't like the stick lift, someone else doesn't like the hooking, another person wants to be able to cross check in front of the net. Suck it up and deal with the new standards. Neither you or I get to pick the rules or the standards, but we do have to observe them. If people would spend less time bitching and a little more time trying to understand them, it wouldn't be such a problem. Then again, it's easier to complain for most people.

[chippa13 1844]

Because the crux of it is, calling a penalty for the simple act of lifting an opponents stick is a stupid rule, plain and simple. Might as well take body checks out of the game too because you're not playing the puck, you're playing the body.

[hockeydoc 0]

That's the deal. It's not new rules, it's new interpretations. Yes let's open up the game, and develope skill. That's what I love about Hockey, it is the sport that requires the most varied skills of any. There is no athleticism in hitting a guy trying to receive a pass, or getting a free ride forcing a faster skater to drag your lazy a&& down the rink.

It will get better as players adapt. The real learning curve will be on the refs adapting to the intent and goal sought by a more open game concept. CONSISTANCY is all that's needed for players to adjust. That will only come from USAH getting better communication to the reffing organizations. Time will help that also (time to communicate).

I think this will get all you slow guys to finally learn to skate, rather than forcing my daughter to carry you, lol!

[hockeydoc 0]

Because the crux of it is, calling a penalty for the simple act of lifting an opponents stick is a stupid rule, plain and simple. Might as well take body checks out of the game too because you're not playing the puck, you're playing the body.

Lifting a stick to take a puck off a player is legal. Lifting a stick to make you miss a pass is legal. Just like checking to bump someone off the puck is legal. But due to the vagueness of USAH communication, and the Dorkiness of some refs, they call you for lifting a guys stick off the puck. My daughter got called for this, and most the parents bit@#^& about it being a bad rule. It is not a bad rule!! Those are just bad calls!!! It should not have been called in those cases. I.E. CONSISTANCY!! (and maybe some common sense, on the refs part.)

[Chadd 916]

Because the crux of it is, calling a penalty for the simple act of lifting an opponents stick is a stupid rule, plain and simple.  Might as well take body checks out of the game too because you're not playing the puck, you're playing the body.

Lifting a stick to take a puck off a player is legal. Lifting a stick to make you miss a pass is legal. Just like checking to bump someone off the puck is legal. But due to the vagueness of USAH communication, and the Dorkiness of some refs, they call you for lifting a guys stick off the puck. My daughter got called for this, and most the parents bit@#^& about it being a bad rule. It is not a bad rule!! Those are just bad calls!!! It should not have been called in those cases. I.E. CONSISTANCY!! (and maybe some common sense, on the refs part.)

Even the USAH instructors in our area disagree on what the new standards are, and this was before the email went out making it less clear.

[hockeydoc 0]

Because the crux of it is, calling a penalty for the simple act of lifting an opponents stick is a stupid rule, plain and simple.  Might as well take body checks out of the game too because you're not playing the puck, you're playing the body.

Lifting a stick to take a puck off a player is legal. Lifting a stick to make you miss a pass is legal. Just like checking to bump someone off the puck is legal. But due to the vagueness of USAH communication, and the Dorkiness of some refs, they call you for lifting a guys stick off the puck. My daughter got called for this, and most the parents bit@#^& about it being a bad rule. It is not a bad rule!! Those are just bad calls!!! It should not have been called in those cases. I.E. CONSISTANCY!! (and maybe some common sense, on the refs part.)

Even the USAH instructors in our area disagree on what the new standards are, and this was before the email went out making it less clear.

Well, it shows...LOL!

instead of laughing, maybe I should cover my face in shame( ), lol.

[Norm 0]

Because the crux of it is, calling a penalty for the simple act of lifting an opponents stick is a stupid rule, plain and simple. Might as well take body checks out of the game too because you're not playing the puck, you're playing the body.

Sounds good to me.

[hockechamp14 0]

Too bad the referees don't call dirty hits anymore. The problem was two fold:

1) No one teaches the kids how to actually play defence without latching on and "tying" men up.

2) No one teaches the kids how to properly hit, so you end up with kids hitting with thier hands up all thier life, and then half the players taking hits with hands up so they don't get jacked in the face by the other kid.

It seems like boarding, elbowing, and charging just got thrown out the rulebook with this new "standard"

[Trooper 8]

I was/am in favor of bringing skill back into the game, and wanted to get through a few games and watch a few before passing judgement. The guys that do our games (ACHA DI) are the same guys that do all of the Jr. B, some Jr. A, and Midget AAA around the area, so they are about as good as we're going to get.

My opinion as of now, how our first month has gone is that as instituted, the new standard is harming the game. Refs clearly don't understand what the intent was, are not being evaluated each game, and when you question them (yes, nicely) all you get is, "It's the new standard, coach!" The new standard is something refs are hiding behind. If a ref makes enough calls during a game, he feels he has done his job. Refs are making wisecracks about how many calls they made the night before, etc. The games are being called very inconsistently from one crew to another and from one period to another.

The game is actually boring with all the PPs. Special teams are now 5-5. The kids aren't having fun, I'm not having fun. These calls are being made between skilled teams, not one hacking team trying to keep up with a superior opponent by hooking, etc. I laugh at calls that go in our favor they are so rediculous.

The fallback call is obviously interference, it has to be 50% of the calls. There is no accountability for the refs, there was no clear vision or plan by USAH.

[Chadd 916]

The fallback call is obviously interference, it has to be 50% of the calls. There is no accountability for the refs, there was no clear vision or plan by USAH.

I'll agree with you on this and that refs need more supervision. I just believe that supervision should be an extension of the teaching process and not used to punish refs. People just don't want to pay extra for a supervisor to sit in the stands.

I don't know how it is in your area but I haven't been supervised in 5 years, and the same goes for a lot of other guys. I've been told conflicting things by USAH and local instructors regarding the rules and USAH has changed the video that was shown at the clinic.

I did a game last night that had no more than 12-15 penalties, though we probably missed one or two. As teams learn the new standards and the refs get comfortable, it will improve.

[KYHockey3 0]

our 1st highschool game was last thursday and i was suprised how well we did with the new rules.

we had 14 penaltys, and only 1 5-3.

i was very pleased that we still won with all those penaltys.

[Project824 0]

The fallback call is obviously interference, it has to be 50% of the calls.  There is no accountability for the refs, there was no clear vision or plan by USAH.

I'll agree with you on this and that refs need more supervision. I just believe that supervision should be an extension of the teaching process and not used to punish refs. People just don't want to pay extra for a supervisor to sit in the stands.

I don't know how it is in your area but I haven't been supervised in 5 years, and the same goes for a lot of other guys. I've been told conflicting things by USAH and local instructors regarding the rules and USAH has changed the video that was shown at the clinic.

I did a game last night that had no more than 12-15 penalties, though we probably missed one or two. As teams learn the new standards and the refs get comfortable, it will improve.

Chadd (and any other experienced referees) -

I've got a million reasons why this standards initiative is hurting us, but a more pressing question:

Do you feel at all insulted as an experienced ref that USA Hockey has gone to this, eliminating any and all interpretation of the rules and game management? What made a good high level referee in the past was his ability to differentiate and call what he needed to, keep the game under control and essentially not be a factor in the game unless necessary. Where do you guys stand on this, a lot of our locals now feel that any 14 year old that can keep up skating can call a game.

[hockechamp14 0]

The fallback call is obviously interference, it has to be 50% of the calls.  There is no accountability for the refs, there was no clear vision or plan by USAH.

I'll agree with you on this and that refs need more supervision. I just believe that supervision should be an extension of the teaching process and not used to punish refs. People just don't want to pay extra for a supervisor to sit in the stands.

I don't know how it is in your area but I haven't been supervised in 5 years, and the same goes for a lot of other guys. I've been told conflicting things by USAH and local instructors regarding the rules and USAH has changed the video that was shown at the clinic.

I did a game last night that had no more than 12-15 penalties, though we probably missed one or two. As teams learn the new standards and the refs get comfortable, it will improve.

Chadd (and any other experienced referees) -

I've got a million reasons why this standards initiative is hurting us, but a more pressing question:

Do you feel at all insulted as an experienced ref that USA Hockey has gone to this, eliminating any and all interpretation of the rules and game management? What made a good high level referee in the past was his ability to differentiate and call what he needed to, keep the game under control and essentially not be a factor in the game unless necessary. Where do you guys stand on this, a lot of our locals now feel that any 14 year old that can keep up skating can call a game.

because the refereeing was so bad because some refs wanted to go home early and not draw out games, in midget/junior the talent was gone and all that was going on was defence.

It comes down to that USA hockey is trying to make better players and wants players to be able to make it to NCAA division 1 and the NHL over the canadians, and the north americans want the canadians and USA guys in the NHL over the europeans and russians. USA hockey wants to make USA hockey players better.

[Chadd 916]

Chadd (and any other experienced referees) -

I've got a million reasons why this standards initiative is hurting us, but a more pressing question:

Do you feel at all insulted as an experienced ref that USA Hockey has gone to this, eliminating any and all interpretation of the rules and game management? What made a good high level referee in the past was his ability to differentiate and call what he needed to, keep the game under control and essentially not be a factor in the game unless necessary. Where do you guys stand on this, a lot of our locals now feel that any 14 year old that can keep up skating can call a game.

I think it's a very good thing. Way too many officials were allowing players to get away with murder on the ice. Thugs and goons are finally going to be phased out of the youth game. It's going to be more important than ever for coaches to be able to develop player skills. Those "good" officials who knew what to call and what not to call are the ones who put the game in the situation that it is in now. It's time that all players play by all of the rules all the time.

I do believe there are some problems:

1. One referee can't fairly call the game the way USAH or HC wants to have it called.

2. USAH is already changing interpretations and definitions.

3. Even without this extra sliding scale one day of clinics is not enough to make this transition smoothly.

4. Even instructors in our area can't agree on what the rules mean, how can those of us who have "only" been doing it for 7-8 years?

5. Too many officials are nursing bruised egos and spending more time bitching than trying to get better.

I believe that USAH and HC should consider eliminating linesmen and develop and true 3 official system where all officials have equal authority. Tradition and ego shouldn't matter if the system isn't effective.

[MDE3 0]

excellent points Chadd, and I am glad you have the perspective your do....and I would assume the goals of the rules interpretation change are multiple.

Not only does USA Hockey want to develop more skills in it's youth players and ultimately make the sport more "exciting", but to change it to where skills are rewarded not nullified by what is essentially "cheating". Thus promoting the benefits of being able to skate pass and shoot more adeptly.

The second initiative...and at least equally important, is to change the image of the game in the eyes of novice parents, where previously it had been seen as a "goon sport" and where "cheating systematically" using mugging and holding was rewarded under the guise of being "good defence". The net result of this image was to send the kids into a different sport. Hence the points made earlier about teaching correct "hitting" techniques is well made also..for the same reasons.

In addition, those parents who had spent the time and money to get their kids to higher skill levels would often take them out of the sport due to the way the game was allowed to be played, where those skills traditionally lauded as the essence of the sport, became meaningless in so many games due to a weak interpretation of the rules. To the point that this style of hockey was (and still is by many)considered to be "the real version" of the sport.

As much as the intitiative is to "open up" the sport, it is ultimately an initiative to increase the growth of hockey as well.

The most important other circumstance to police, and this one is harder, is the nature of those who choose to be refferees. Like many other walks of life where individuals are granted some form of "power" over others, many gravitate to the occupation in part because of this need to be in "control". Not a circumstance unique to hockey, and can be seen in many walks of bureaucratic life.

This personality trait must be monitored and avoided wherever possible....not an easy task..and one that warrants substantial 'review time" by qualified officials...a time consuming and expensive proposition.....I have known many refs over the years, and at least 20% of these individuals, thought it was their job to "control" the game...and that often included the outcome. Many of these same individuals also felt that 8 hours of class and rink time, and a striped shirt, vested them with some form of near papal infallibility....

The primary incentive for a refferee is simply this..make sure the playing ground is level, and that no-one is abusing the rules...so the outcome will fall however it does due to the efforts of the players..period.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Well all that being said and now Hockey Canada is having second thoughts on what is going on. They might re look atr the rules being called because the wide and diffrent feelings when it comes to the refs and how they want to call the game. (on the Rec Level).

Also there was an issue the other night in the NHL the Ducks Oilers game where there were a ton of penelties not called. Those guys called dragged up and down the carpet for that game.

So do we let it go as is or do we tweak some of the rules a little and which ones?

[hooshockey77 0]

I had a hockey game last night and our team had around 13 penalties with probably the same for the other team. This was a huge jump up from my two previous games when only one or two were called. Same refs and everything as before so idk what the deal was. There was also a dumb rule that when one player got his 3rd penalty, he had to serve a 10 minute misconduct penalty with his two minute penalty and another player on the team had to serve a two minute penalty. Is this the same with other people's leagues?

[Chadd 916]

That sounds like a league rule.

[kosydar 0]

If its a non-contact adult league, then I like that rule. No need anyone should take three penalties in a relaxed game environment.

[KYHockey3 0]

I had a hockey game last night and our team had around 13 penalties with probably the same for the other team. This was a huge jump up from my two previous games when only one or two were called. Same refs and everything as before so idk what the deal was. There was also a dumb rule that when one player got his 3rd penalty, he had to serve a 10 minute misconduct penalty with his two minute penalty and another player on the team had to serve a two minute penalty. Is this the same with other people's leagues?

thats not a rule in my league.

i think here it is 5 and your out for the next game