Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Has the CCHA put in new rules, or bumping up the enforcement of checking from behind? It seems like every game i've watched or followed at least has had someone called for a 5 min major, game misconduct. (Tonight's call was BS by the way... and as I take it last night's was too) Are we just seeing a random trend or were there rules changes made?

It was a rules change after a kid was paralyzed in the (WCHA?) playoffs last year. It's an NCAA thing, although apparently, according to our resident hockey expert here, it's a discretionary thing, though I don't know what their options are on it, if its whether they think it's 2 or 5 mins, or if it's automatically five and they determine if there's a game misconduct to go with it.

TG1996 wrote:It was a rules change after a kid was paralyzed in the (WCHA?) playoffs last year. It's an NCAA thing, although apparently, according to our resident hockey expert here, it's a discretionary thing, though I don't know what their options are on it, if its whether they think it's 2 or 5 mins, or if it's automatically five and they determine if there's a game misconduct to go with it.

I am pretty sure if it is deemed worthy of a 5, it is automatically a game misconduct.

I didn't have time to read through it, but here's an article/rant on the subject from INCH...

http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/7Arc ... c_0409.htm

The quote came from an equally vocal rant from a Michigan fan:

Last year during the WCHA tournament Jeff Paukovich broke Robbie Bina's neck with a check from behind. Paukovich was given a minor for the incident, though he was suspended by the WCHA for Denver's next game. As a result, the NCAA declared all checks from behind to be five minute majors and game misconducts.

This decision has proved to be entirely dumb, as you could probably guess. The huge penalty for even benign half-checks from behind has caused anyone near the boards to turn away from incoming checkers, hoping to draw a cheap major. The NCAA's overreaction to one unfortunate incident has caused more harm than good.

http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/unv ... arity.html

Interesting... I definitely agree that safety should be the first and foremost consideration in playing. These are just college kids playing a game for sure. I like the quote in the INCH article though of "Referees, make damn sure you know what you're calling" Hell.. consult with your linesman (I refuse to call them asst ref's) and make sure it was a legitimate check.

I know referees have to watch a lot, and their job isn't easy. I'd like to think I could do a better job (ok i know i could have done better than that idiot Philo tonight. every dump in attempt he flinched b/c he was afraid to get hit.. arg i could go on) but anyways, they don't have an easy job. With all that they have to watch, to expect them to call a game mis. on a check they see out of the corner of their eye? I don't like it... I do like the idea of some kind of varying severity... like the 2 min minor + 10 min miscond... and major/game misconduct for a cheap shot.

Just my two cents though...

Falcon Fanatic wrote: I am pretty sure if it is deemed worthy of a 5, it is automatically a game misconduct.

It was written into the NCAA rulebook a few years ago, that any check from behind into the boards or net was to result in an automatic 5-minute major and a game misconduct or game disqualification. The only part that was supposed to be referee's discretion was the misconduct/DQ. Most referees did not call the penalty as it should have been, hence the reason for the new mandate. There are still referees that are not calling the new mandate like they should. McInchak is one of them. Last weekend he called two checking from behind penatlies and neither one was a major.

Sitko's penalty was no worse of a hit than the one one Matsumoto tonight. Matsumoto was actually checked into the goal post from behind, right in front of Philo. The area between his shoulder and neck is what hit the post to dislodge it. Good way to break a collar bone.

pdt1081 wrote:

Falcon Fanatic wrote: I am pretty sure if it is deemed worthy of a 5, it is automatically a game misconduct.

It was written into the NCAA rulebook a few years ago, that any check from behind into the boards or net was to result in an automatic 5-minute major and a game misconduct or game disqualification. The only part that was supposed to be referee's discretion was the misconduct/DQ. Most referees did not call the penalty as it should have been, hence the reason for the new mandate. There are still referees that are not calling the new mandate like they should. McInchak is one of them. Last weekend he called two checking from behind penatlies and neither one was a major.

Sitko's penalty was no worse of a hit than the one one Matsumoto tonight. Matsumoto was actually checked into the goal post from behind, right in front of Philo. The area between his shoulder and neck is what hit the post to dislodge it. Good way to break a collar bone.

I'm afraid I've got to disagree on a couple of points here. Yes, several years ago the NCAA mandated a 5 minute major for all "checking from behind." Since any 5 minute major automatically gets an additional 10 minute misconduct and/or DQ, many officials were hesitant to call 'checking from behind'...opting to call it either boarding, charging or something else.
This year, the officials have been given discretion to call it according to the severity of the hit...they can call it 2 minutes or 5 minutes, but if they call it 5 it's got to include an additional 10 (with game misconduct OR match disqualification).

I've seen a lot of shaky calls and non-calls on this, and I'm sure there's still confusion amoung the players, coaches and officials about what type of hit deserves what call, but I had a real good sight angle on Sitko's hit, and I knew he was gone the instant the hit was made. The Miami player was bent over and facing the boards...Sitko had plenty of opportunity to hold back, but instead he actually leapt forward into the contact. This was a textbook example of precisely the type of hit the NCAA is outlawing, and he's lucky he didn't get a DQ (which would require him to miss next Friday's game at MSU). My guess is he won't play next week anyway...Pooch should be furious with him. Sorry, I've begun to rant

I thought they were going to eject Guerin. (I believe the check was on him.) There was almost a fight, and he certainly wasn't stopping. Heck, the other Miami players weren't helping at all. I can say, that one of BG's players did pull another Falcon back.

All in all, it wasn't a very pretty game... but it's hockey!

I can lend a little clarification on the checking from behind thing.

Checking from behind was one of the NCAA's points of emphasis this season. The rule was already in place, but officials were not calling it as written (as stated earlier in the thread).

The new emphasis for this season was specifically plays that take place along the boards. If the play takes place along the boards, it is supposed to automatically be a 5 min major and either a game misconduct or a game disqualification. The severity of the hit determines whether misconduct or disqualification is called; a misconduct chucks the offending player from the game, a disqualification chucks him from the game and earns him a suspension from the next game. A 10-minute misconduct is not one of the options (which would allow the offending player to return to the game after the 10 is served).

If the play happens away from the boards (open ice), then the official is not obligated to call a 5 min major on checking from behind. He may call a checking from behind minor (2 mins) if he so desires.

Having seen none of the plays that are mentioned on this thread, I cannot comment on why a specific play was called as it was. But I hope this clears things up a bit.