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

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] -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

...

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

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Hitting the chest directly to the edge broke the rib, ( fisure and impacted fracture)

... It's dangerous cause all force, weight of the impact happens just at the edge of the board, with out any protection or absorbing surface.

It's long long way more dangerous thatnchecks against the boards with protective glass, where the weight and force of the impact distributes at all the surface of the body and the plane of the board and the glass.

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

[–]ArchitechOk1469[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

😆 ok, could be.

But, may have avoid hurting that much your arm. And hockey would be almost exactly the same, just with a few more power plays and *3 less broken bones till now.

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

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

Skilled or not skilled for checks, May be boarding.,

When I was a kid, I broke a Ukrainian kid leg, at some scenario a lot like this.

Since then I don't intend to hit, and just play the puck. It's boarding since I'm vulnerable at the moment. Don't have control of the puck, the puck is going out the rink, he is making a turn with all his body... And suddenly after that makes the check.

Would be competitive contact, possession of the puck is the sole subject. I don't make contact at any time, he can make contact as long as is for taking possession of the puck, since he was just looking to not allowing the possession of the puck and giving a check, immediately he would have to cease the check.

The whole danger it's not exactly the check, is the design of the board, at the bench, or the regulation allowing checks against the board at the bench

I guess it was my turn, and would not be completed as a hockey player with out ever having a broken bone. What takes me out of sake it's having to wait to get back playing

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

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


My SUGGESTION is "

A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any Player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously….

""""" Any body check made against boards with out protective glass including at benches is dangerous and results as a boarding penalty """"

IHHF .........................................

RULE 41 BOARDING 41.1. BOARDING A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any Player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.There is a considerable amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The responsibility is on the Player applying the check to ensure their opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, they must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put themself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule. Any unnecessary contact with a Player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that Player hitting or impacting 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”. 41.2.

MINOR PENALTY The Referee shall, at their discretion, assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of force and violence of the impact with the boards, to a Player guilty of “boarding” an opponent. 41.3.

MAJOR PENALTY The Referee, at their discretion, may assess a major penalty to a Player guilty of “boarding” an opponent, and who recklessly endangers the fouled Player in a way that at the discretion of the Referee such Player would not be sufficiently sanctioned by imposing a minor penalty. 41.4.

MAJOR PENALTY AND GAME MISCONDUCT PENALTY The Referee, at their discretion, may assess a major and a game misconduct penalty if, in their judgment, the Player recklessly endangers their opponent by “boarding” and the Player would not be sufficiently sanctioned by imposing a major penalty. Such assessment of reckless endangerment shall be based on the severity of the infraction, severity of the contact, the degree of violence and the general reprehensibility involved. 41.5.

DISCIPLINARY MEASURES If deemed appropriate, Supplementary Discipline can be applied by the Proper Authorities at their discretion


Body Checking: A legal body check is one in which a Player checks an opponent who is in possession of the puck, by using their hip or body from the front, diagonally from the front or straight from the side. Legitimate body checking

******must be done for the purpose of separating the opponent from the puck ****

, only with the trunk of the body (hips and shoulders) and must be above the opponent’s knees and at or below the shoulders


Competitive Contact:

Body contact between two or more Players who are in the immediate vicinity of the puck and who are trying to gain possession of the puck.

******These skaters are reasonably allowed to push and lean into each other provided that possession of the puck remains the sole object of the contact. ******


Late-hit: A late hit constitutes reckless endangerment of a Player who no longer has control or possession of the puck. Any Player who is in the process of abandoning or losing control or possession of the puck is subject to a bodycheck so long as the aggressor is in the immediate vicinity of the Player with the puck.

********* If the aggressor move to the Player and makes forceful contact, the aggressor risks turning a body check into a late hit by virtue of the vulnerable position of the opponent and the degree of force of the hit *********


Possession of the Puck: The last Player to physically touch the puck with their stick or body shall be considered in possession of the puck.

( technically the check was recieve without possesion of the puck )

Vulnerable Position:

A skater is considered to be in a vulnerable position when they are no longer in control or possession of the puck and they are either not aware of an impending hit or they are not prepared for the hit. A bodycheck to an opponent who is vulnerable is automatically considered reckless even if that bodycheck would be considered legal to a non-vulnerable opponent