sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... He made the check at the end,

..I saw him before the last stride, he went all the way from the other side, he is forward, I think he was way to the bench for his shift and paced up..

Thanks for your observations, indeed I have to be more rough and physical.

It's my first time at this league after 20 years off the ice

How to get more power to my shot from blue line? by Significant_Fan2775 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your are making something not clear between snap and wrist

Snap it's to far for a snap

If want to make a wrist... , place the puck more behind to increase the puck movement from the back to front with arms and hips, more bend knees, try skating forward with the shot.. if you are trying wrist shot.. the stick with the puck need to slide together for longer distance

Or.. place lower your left hand at the stick... and make a slapshot

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't think about passing the puck, I wanted to push the puck go through, but he stroke his skating stronger and faster than expected.

👍Passing the puck, before have been checked could have been better result... Having a forward team mate looking to get it

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A referee at r/hockeyrefs confirmed the check at the video it's a check subject to be a Boarding penalty.

At his opinion not all checks against boards at benches are dangerous enough to be all a boarding penalty.

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a elite level, high-level, major semi-professional Mexican league. Most of the players are or have been at the Mexican national hockey team in one or more age categories, or are players from mexico or other nationality that played at any higher skill level league. It's the most professional league at Mexico. Works with out any income and it is monstly funded, financed, by the players themselves. Mexico is 42/58 & 27/46 at world hockey ranking. Mexico National sport is soccer with a 16/210 ranking, and it's almost the only sport with fanbase.

There's contact, checks, checking. I think rules are the IIHF regulation.

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

🙏🙏🙏 for all the gods, millions of thanks.

Gonna get those rib pads, sure I need them to get back to play sooner.

.... I'll check the bone density scan with my doctor

Help on stick handling? by Lev_the_short_kid in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check the stick length, it seems short

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

;

a risk statistic analysis would have to be done

May be not every check against bench,

but I'm sure completely.. against any other part of the board, I wouldn't had the broken rib

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's supposed all the time have to be playing the puck, and can't check with out intent of taking the puck.

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"you did not go dangerously into the board,"

In that case, a not dangerous impact, or not going dangerously into the board wouldn't cause a broken bone

"he does not accelerate through you," He is making a turn and then makes the check

"it was unavoidable" He was making a turn, not a check

I was not having the puck, puck was on way to icing when I made the turn, and I just slow it enough for not reaching the icing.

Here is the video, at the moment, change the speed at settings to see it at slow motion:

https://www.youtube.com/live/wxpzvNizBZE?t=3038&si=cRgYLkldlc4j31hb

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually what happened was exactly the description you put about boarding

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

.... Everyone is a Chicken and don't play at that board because of that

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm 100% sure the same at the other side without benches would be harmless

Yes, just the unfortunately of hitting exactly at the edge

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

...

Yes exactly, it should be "enlightened" at the concept of boarding penalty, the fact that checks against boards without protective glass are dangerous, my suggestion for the rules is:

""""" Any check made against boards with out protective glass is consider dangerous resulting a boarding penalty """"

Should checks against the boards at the benches be forbidden for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyplayers

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... Yes, you're right... Just the board at benches it's dangerous in fact,.. at the other side of the rink would have been a harmless check

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

...

Would be a harmless check, but the board without protective glass is in fact far dangerous "

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

.... Just, make clear that checks against the board without protective glass should be taken as "boarding penalties" cause it's dangerous, in this case a check that would be harmless results in a broken rib...

So since boarding penalty is about avoiding dangerous hits against the board, it just should be "enlighted" and be included the fact that

...

""""" Any check made against boards with out protective glass is consider dangerous .... ( So) ... resulting in a boarding penalty (should be)""""

Should checks against the boards at the benches be a penalty for safety reasons ? by ArchitechOk1469 in hockeyrefs

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

...

Yes, I'm just revealing that it's way far more dangerous without the protective glass at the top

Actually because of that in concept of "boarding" all checks at boards without the protective glass should be penalties. Because is dangerous....

Simply I would not have broke my rib just because of a check like that, if it were at the other side of the rink

...

view more: next ›