Question for the referees...

[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.

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!"

Those guys are the retards that deserve bruises though. As I said,

the question is how the official defines "injury".

Most guys I've worked with usually consider it to be something that prevents you from being able to continue playing. IN other words, something that requires medical attention or sends you to the locker room right away.

[shooter27 116]

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.

The USAH rulebook really says that? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just never knew that. I read the NCAA book, way back when I was a freshman, and never saw anything like that in there, but I guess I could have missed it. If thats really the case then I guess my problem is more with the way the rule is written. I was always under the impression that penalties are called to penalize an action not to penalize the result of the action. If someone throws an otherwise clean hit and it results in an injury to the person being hit I have a hard time seeing how that warrants a penalty.

[Chadd 916]

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.

The USAH rulebook really says that? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just never knew that. I read the NCAA book, way back when I was a freshman, and never saw anything like that in there, but I guess I could have missed it. If thats really the case then I guess my problem is more with the way the rule is written. I was always under the impression that penalties are called to penalize an action not to penalize the result of the action. If someone throws an otherwise clean hit and it results in an injury to the person being hit I have a hard time seeing how that warrants a penalty.

If it's a clean hit there is no penalty and I never said there was. Only if the act was going to be penalized and resulted in an injury would it be elevated to a major and game misconduct. If the game was ever called the way the book was written it would put a lot of bad coaches and players out of the competitive levels of the game, too bad that will never happen.

[camhockey16 5]

i agree with everyone else on here

he led with his elbow/shoulder to the head

it was semi-late

and the player was the perfect distance from the boards to bash his head into the boards

it looked like the player might have been cut when he got up? he took of his helmet pretty quickly

anyways i wouldnt have a problem with giving a penalty on that hit - it deserves a 2 min at least

[sdcopp 1]

Chadd's dead on with the vague language remark, there's a TON of gray area refs get to call or let things go. Here's your official USAH excerpt:

Rule 604 Board-Checking

(a) A minor or a major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee

based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the

boards, shall be imposed on any player who body-checks,

cross-checks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a

manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently into

the boards.

(Note) Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the

puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play that results in

that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and

must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is

no contact with the boards it should be treated as

“charging.”

“Rolling” an opponent (if he is the puck carrier) along the

boards where he is endeavoring to go through too small an

opening is not boarding. However, if the opponent is not the

puck carrier, then such action should be penalized as

boarding, charging, interference or if the arms or sticks are

employed it should be called holding or hooking.

(B) When a player injures an opponent as the result of

“boarding,” the Referee shall have no alternative but to

impose a major plus a game misconduct penalty on the

offending player.

[Chadd 916]

Chadd's dead on with the vague language remark, there's a TON of gray area refs get to call or let things go. Here's your official USAH excerpt:

Thank you

( B) When a player injures an opponent as the result of

"boarding," the Referee shall have no alternative but to

impose a major plus a game misconduct penalty on the

offending player.

That language is included under virtually every other penalty as well, not just boarding.

[Buddy 7]

Definately a boarding call. Hit was late, and player was violently thrown into the boards.

The onus of a hit is with the person giving the hit, not the person being checked. Therefore there is no "he put himself in a bad position"