You Are the Committee

[Jim Hyla]

I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.

I can believe that.  So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit?  Is it only leaving your feet beforehand?  Intent to do so?

I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).

As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::

[Dpperk29]

I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.

I can believe that.  So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit?  Is it only leaving your feet beforehand?  Intent to do so?

I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).

As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::

For once, I completely agree with Jim. Hits to the head need to be eliminated from the game of Hockey. No one deserves to be permanently harmed from playing hockey, and head injuries are a heartless bitch.

[Rosey]

This was clearly one of those.

Actually, that's not at all clear to me from the videos or the stills.  There was certainly contact to the head, but it's not clear that it was intentional ("head-hunting" ).  Wehrs put his head down at the last second, presumably to dick around with the puck.  What is Frettin supposed to do?  Veer off a good check because Wehrs decided to cushion the blow to his body with his head?  He should have and could have seen Frettin coming, but instead put his own head in a dangerous place.  Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for Wehrs in this case (beyond the usual sympathy I would have for someone who was hurt, no matter what the cause).  I would have a very different opinion were it hitting from behind, but it wasn't.

And FWIW I play non-checking hockey.  Body checks are not allowed.  This is not the case in men's college hockey: part of the game is keeping your head up and looking for checks.

[tretiak]

No one here has tried to refute the fact that contact to the head is illegal. I'm not arguing that the hit wasn't dirty. It was both a hit to the head and a charge because Frettin took multiple strides before delivering a hit. Jim tried to argue that it was a dirty hit because Frettin left his feet. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, he's now changing his argument and using straw-man arguments to make his point.

KeithK, as pointed out in the rules and interpretations, the charging penalty only occurs if the player leaves his feet before the hit. Once contact is made, then there can't be a charging penalty; ie: there is no penalty if a player is knocked into the air as a result of a hit.

[KeithK]

I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.

I can believe that.  So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit?  Is it only leaving your feet beforehand?  Intent to do so?

I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).

As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::

Jim, I was just inquiring into the leaving his feet part, the charge part. I've never said the check was not illegal. We just disagree on the subjective part of how dirty/especially dangerous the hit was, which plays into the quesiton of outrage and additional discipline.

[KeithK]

Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.

This is an odd way to state the rule.  In my mind a body check is by definition violent. According to the letter of the rule here you could call charging on virtually every hit that occurs in every game.

[Jim Hyla]

Obviously I'm not going to convince some of the above, I'm just glad the WCHA decided to do something about it. I'm also glad that Kyle plays in a non-checking league; I'd hate to have him lose some mental function. After all, I need as many disagreements as possible to have a good discussion.::bolt::

[Jacob '06]

Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.

This is an odd way to state the rule.  In my mind a body check is by definition violent. According to the letter of the rule here you could call charging on virtually every hit that occurs in every game.

You are neglecting the "as a result of distance traveled" part. Essentially they are saying if you carry a ton of speed in to a hit and hit the person violently, then it is charging. Notice it also says "jump into" not jump before hitting the player. I think the UND player violated the spirit of the charging rule, and the contact to the head made it worse. I hate this whole tough guy "keep your head up" phenomenon. Sometimes in hockey you actually have to look at the puck to figure out where it is, it doesn't make you any dumber or worse as a hockey player. The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head. Even that probably would have ended up as a charge or a board with the speed he came in to the hit with and the fact that the MN player was a couple feet off the boards and was going to fly in to them violently.

[ugarte]

The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head.

I agree with Jacob (and by implication, disagree with tretiak) that this is what Frettin did. The stills show that he was still on the ice before contact, but they also show him (IMO) crouching into position and releasing upwards, to explode through Wehrs on contact. He didn't leave the ice incidentally to contact, he left the ice in order to finish the check hard.

I'm not calling for a criminal indictment either, and it is arguable that the hit to the head was accidental, but I'm not the person who thinks it is a good argument. A major and ejection were appropriate. Not sure about a suspension. For that I'd want to look to precedent.

[Jim Hyla]

The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head.

I agree with Jacob (and by implication, disagree with tretiak) that this is what Frettin did. The stills show that he was still on the ice before contact, but they also show him (IMO) crouching into position and releasing upwards, to explode through Wehrs on contact. He didn't leave the ice incidentally to contact, he left the ice in order to finish the check hard.

I'm not calling for a criminal indictment either, and it is arguable that the hit to the head was accidental, but I'm not the person who thinks it is a good argument. A major and ejection were appropriate. Not sure about a suspension. For that I'd want to look to precedent.

I suspect he got the suspension because he wasn't ejected.

[jkahn]

With UMD loss tonight, 1-1 should get us in (at least I haven't found a way it doesn't).  Still plenty of ways to not make the NCAA's if 0-2 and some at 0-1-1.  
Let's Go Red.

[Tom Lento]

This was clearly one of those.

Actually, that's not at all clear to me from the videos or the stills.  There was certainly contact to the head, but it's not clear that it was intentional ("head-hunting" ).  Wehrs put his head down at the last second, presumably to dick around with the puck.  What is Frettin supposed to do?  Veer off a good check because Wehrs decided to cushion the blow to his body with his head?  He should have and could have seen Frettin coming, but instead put his own head in a dangerous place.  Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for Wehrs in this case (beyond the usual sympathy I would have for someone who was hurt, no matter what the cause).  I would have a very different opinion were it hitting from behind, but it wasn't.

And FWIW I play non-checking hockey.  Body checks are not allowed.  This is not the case in men's college hockey: part of the game is keeping your head up and looking for checks.

Kind of off-topic (although I suppose this whole conversation is off-topic), but having been flattened several times in my non-checking hockey league this season, I can tell you that you should keep your head up whether or not body-checking is legal.

[Al DeFlorio]

Michigan or Maine could take a tournament slot and knock out a bubble PWR team by winning their league, although a Maine win tomorrow night could raise their PWR enough to put them in even without the automatic bid.  Cornell sitting at #8 at 11:28pm EDT.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I've been playing a bit since I've been Back at the hotel.  The lowest I've been able to get us so far is 11.  Even if both Maine and Michigan win tomorrow, along with us losing to Union, 11 should get us in since the WCHA winner will be a ranked team.

[andyw2100]

I didn't spend very much time on it at all, but the following might save someone a minute or two. All the higher seeds winning would result in Cornell winding up 7th.