Question for the referees...

[#44wannabe 4]

If you would, what penalty?

I filmed from a game today between two teams in the league i play in. I personally thought it was just a good solid hit.

The HIT

[kosydar 0]

I don't think I'd call anything. What did they call?

[#44wannabe 4]

Boarding, everyone was a bit bemused. But then again the referee also gave a player 5+match for spearing 7 minutes after the incident and had given a penalty to another player in that time frame.

[chippa13 1844]

A case can be made for boarding. The infraction is, paraphrased, violently propelling an opposing player into the boards". Not sure about a 5er for it but I can see the call being made.

[#44wannabe 4]

A case can be made for boarding. The infraction is, paraphrased, violently propelling an opposing player into the boards". Not sure about a 5er for it but I can see the call being made.

The 5er was for a separate incident. This call was 2mins boarding.

[chippa13 1844]

A 2 minute boarding call works for me.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Given that boarding was what first came to mind I don't see the call as being out there, definately a minor, but the call is reasonable.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I'm not a ref...but I instantly thought boarding or charging. The guy comes a good way to make that hit.

[kosydar 0]

I'd have a hard time calling that charging given how slow he was. I'd be fine with a boarding, but I personally wouldn't call it (but I tend to not call a lot). The player put himself in a real bad spot being that distance away from the boards.

[Theodoras 0]

I'm not a ref...but I instantly thought boarding or charging. The guy comes a good way to make that hit.

Same here. What's the definition of charging now? Because I thought it was coming all the way across ice, out of your position, to make the hit on someone. But yeah, I guess I'd call that boarding because it wasn't along the boards or on open ice... tough call but when dangerous hits like that happen I think refs feel obligated to let it be known...

[Chadd 916]

Charging or elbowing could be justified, boarding is probably what I would have gone with though. Charging is taking more than three or more strides directly at a player before hitting them, those strides can be taken before gliding into the hit. Any time you see a player "lock on" halfway across the ice, you can justify a charging call and that guy was locked in on for that hit when he came into the frame. In any case, it's a dangerous hit. In all honesty, after watching the replay several times, I'd even consider a major for boarding.

[shooter27 116]

I would be ok with a boarding call because it looked to me like the hit was border-line late. The way I've understood it is you generally have about a second or so to finish a hit once the puck is released and, while not clearly late, the hit does push the envelope.

That being said, I've never understood the whole "violently propelled into the boards" aspect of boarding. Pretty much any hit into the boards could be classified as violently propelling someone into the boards. Something about that language has always struck me as odd.

[Chadd 916]

I would be ok with a boarding call because it looked to me like the hit was border-line late. The way I've understood it is you generally have about a second or so to finish a hit once the puck is released and, while not clearly late, the hit does push the envelope.

That being said, I've never understood the whole "violently propelled into the boards" aspect of boarding. Pretty much any hit into the boards could be classified as violently propelling someone into the boards. Something about that language has always struck me as odd.

Refs tend to like vague language, it gives us a lot of wiggle room. In this case, the guy was knocked off his feet and out of control into the boards. He had no way of protecting himself as he went in, that would qualify as "violently propelled" in my book. The wording does preclude any penalty for just rubbing the guy out or a close quarters check.

[McDougalfaschnitzer 32]

From the ref's perspective, I could see a boarding or elbowing penalty call being made. Not that I think there was an elbow, but just from his point of view I could see it leading to that decision.

[shooter27 116]

Refs tend to like vague language, it gives us a lot of wiggle room. In this case, the guy was knocked off his feet and out of control into the boards. He had no way of protecting himself as he went in, that would qualify as "violently propelled" in my book. The wording does preclude any penalty for just rubbing the guy out or a close quarters check.

I hear your point, but in a situation where someone throws a clean, legal (not a high stick, not an elbow, not a charge) hit against someone that is already against the boards, that would qualify as "violently propelling into the boards" and therefore become a penalty. Thats the situation where I hate the rule. I agree that you need to be able to protect players in that danger zone (2-3 feet from the boards) because those hits are dangerous, but at the same time I hate seeing clean hitting taken out of the game by some refs. In the video the reason I would argue vehemently against the major is because it appears (the video makes it hard to tell if it may have been a charge) that other than the location it was a good, solid hit. If he makes that hit in open ice or with the player up against the boards I don't see a call being made so I have a hard time seeing that warrant a major.

[Chadd 916]

If the player is "already against the boards", they are not being thrown violently into the boards.

It was a late hit simply for the purpose of intimidation, not a "good hit" according to USA Hockey. The purpose of a body check is to separate the player from the puck, not the player from consciousness. As the puck was already gone, there was no reason to check him other than to punish him or intimidate him. Neither is a valid reason according to the national governing body of the sport. Referees tend to let the timing go but these are the same refs that allowed the hooking and holding to get so far out of line that USAH had to remind them what the rule book actually said about those offenses. The hit was also slightly from behind as it spun the (former) puck carrier upon impact.

So we have:

Several strides and locked in for the hit

Leading with an elbow

Slightly from behind

Throws the player into the boards in a manner in which he is unable to protect himself

After the puck is gone

That doesn't seem like a "good, solid hit" to me in any way, shape or form.

I would feel comfortable calling it a major for those reasons. At game speed I saw it as a minor, assuming there was no injury on the play. After watching the replay a few times, I would have no problem either calling it either way.

[Nightcast 0]

I would have called boarding if I was refing. It wasn't a good hit like said above. Late hit IMO.

[#44wannabe 4]

The guy that was hit apparently didnt return to play.

[fieldofdreams 0]

I'd have a hard time calling that charging given how slow he was. I'd be fine with a boarding, but I personally wouldn't call it (but I tend to not call a lot). The player put himself in a real bad spot being that distance away from the boards.

If someone gets hit from behind into the boards, are they putting themsef in a bad spot as well? I have always thought that it is not the player's fault who gets hit, it is the player that is doing the hitting who has the responsibility to make a clean play.

Any decent referee would call at least a minor for boarding. The OP said it was a clean hit. But then again, look at the OP's history.

[shooter27 116]

If the player is "already against the boards", they are not being thrown violently into the boards.

It was a late hit simply for the purpose of intimidation, not a "good hit" according to USA Hockey. The purpose of a body check is to separate the player from the puck, not the player from consciousness. As the puck was already gone, there was no reason to check him other than to punish him or intimidate him. Neither is a valid reason according to the national governing body of the sport. Referees tend to let the timing go but these are the same refs that allowed the hooking and holding to get so far out of line that USAH had to remind them what the rule book actually said about those offenses. The hit was also slightly from behind as it spun the (former) puck carrier upon impact.

So we have:

Several strides and locked in for the hit

Leading with an elbow

Slightly from behind

Throws the player into the boards in a manner in which he is unable to protect himself

After the puck is gone

That doesn't seem like a "good, solid hit" to me in any way, shape or form.

I would feel comfortable calling it a major for those reasons. At game speed I saw it as a minor, assuming there was no injury on the play. After watching the replay a few times, I would have no problem either calling it either way.

I'll give you that it was border-line late, and I'll give you that it could have been several strides because we can't really see where the guy starts and "locks on." However, he definitely did not lead with his elbow, his elbow is tucked against his side until contact, it comes up during the follow through as a result of the impact. I also don't see it as being from behind, but that could be a result of the camera angle so I'll give you that too. As for it being after the puck is gone, every coach in every league, everywhere teaches their players to finish their check so there has to be some allowance for a player to make a hit after the puck is released, in this case I could agree with this being considered late, its definitely pushing the envelope as I said earlier. Let's pretend for a second that the hit is made in the center of the ice, nowhere near the boards, do you still call a penalty? Assuming that it wasn't a charge, which I admit it might have been.

I think it probably depends what level of play we're talking about too. If this is young kids (14&U, 16&U) or a non-professional adult league, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But if you're talking about high level junior, high level prep/high school, college, or pro hockey thats the type of hit that is very common place (save for the location near the boards) and often goes completely uncalled.

Your comment about injury also bothers me (and by no means am I making this a personal issue, I'm taking your comments as something that is representative of refs as a whole), although it is quite common among refs. Whether the player is injured or not should have no bearing on the severity of the penalty (save for a high stick). I've been in situations where I've had my shoulder separated or been given a concussion or a hit that was clearly a penalty, does my injury automatically turn that minor penalty into a major?

[fieldofdreams 0]

Let's pretend for a second that the hit is made in the center of the ice, nowhere near the boards, do you still call a penalty? Assuming that it wasn't a charge, which I admit it might have been.

I've been in situations where I've had my shoulder separated or been given a concussion or a hit that was clearly a penalty, does my injury automatically turn that minor penalty into a major?

On your first point... of course not. There are no boards, hence no boarding call. The penalty was not the hit ITSELF, but the fact that the hit caused the player to crash into the boards in the fashion he did. You put that hit at center ice, what happens? The guy falls and hits the ice. No biggie. Factor the boards in there, and the risk for injury goes up exponentially. THAT, and only that, is the reason for the boarding penalty in the book, and the reason it was called on the play in question.

On to #2... You are unclear. No one can truthfully answer your question, because there is no facts to go on. It is very vague. But in 90% of instances, the answer is no, an injury due to a penalty does not consitute a higher penatly.

[shooter27 116]

On your first point... of course not. There are no boards, hence no boarding call. The penalty was not the hit ITSELF, but the fact that the hit caused the player to crash into the boards in the fashion he did. You put that hit at center ice, what happens? The guy falls and hits the ice. No biggie. Factor the boards in there, and the risk for injury goes up exponentially. THAT, and only that, is the reason for the boarding penalty in the book, and the reason it was called on the play in question.

The reason I asked the question was because the other poster stated that he also saw elements of a charge, elbow, hit from behind, and late hit. It wasn't the boarding aspect of the hit I was asking about, I've already conceded that the hit is probably a penalty, it was those other elements that I didn't see that had me asking the question.

[phunky_monkey 6]

I think a boarding call is fair in that case. I'd also see a borderline charging call, which I wouldn't call if I was a ref, but could easily see it being called here in Aus.

[Chadd 916]

Your comment about injury also bothers me (and by no means am I making this a personal issue, I'm taking your comments as something that is representative of refs as a whole), although it is quite common among refs. Whether the player is injured or not should have no bearing on the severity of the penalty (save for a high stick). I've been in situations where I've had my shoulder separated or been given a concussion or a hit that was clearly a penalty, does my injury automatically turn that minor penalty into a major?

The USA Hockey rules state that you MUST give a five and game for acts that are penalties when that act causes an injury. By rule an injury MUST have an impact on the severity of the penalty. It's amazing what you can find if you actually read the rule book.

But in 90% of instances, the answer is no, an injury due to a penalty does not consitute a higher penatly.

Actually it should, the question is how the official defines "injury".

[fieldofdreams 0]

Your comment about injury also bothers me (and by no means am I making this a personal issue, I'm taking your comments as something that is representative of refs as a whole), although it is quite common among refs. Whether the player is injured or not should have no bearing on the severity of the penalty (save for a high stick). I've been in situations where I've had my shoulder separated or been given a concussion or a hit that was clearly a penalty, does my injury automatically turn that minor penalty into a major?

The USA Hockey rules state that you MUST give a five and game for acts that are penalties when that act causes an injury. By rule an injury MUST have an impact on the severity of the penalty. It's amazing what you can find if you actually read the rule book.

Oh jeez, if that's truly the case, i hope none of the beer leaguers read this. They'll be pulling up thier jersey sleeves to show the refs the bruises and cuts they get from any bump along the boards.

"Hey ref, I'm injured. That's a major and you know it!"