IIHF New Rule: Late Hite Rule #153

[hososo]

Finnish leagues are already using this rule, but there is no more penaltys vs last season. and im not see any difference

 

[VVP]

Ken Dryden explained where finishing your checks came from. It was an invention by some coaches that allowed slower players to compete with faster, more skilled players. However it also brought to the game an epidemic of concussions in hockey.

 

[Mathieu]

If they call it that tight it's going to be a long tourney eh.

From the examples in the video, I could see the 2nd one being called as he had plenty of time to let go and even hit him with an elbow to the head it seems, but the other two were perfectly fine. The puck carrier saw the hit coming and got rid of the puck..

 

[Orfieus]

The first example is just terrible, the player is still going through the motion of shooting the puck but it is still a late hit?

If they are going to call it like that this will be my last WJC

 

[llwyd]

I think people haven't really gotten it how bad problem concussions have been and still are in the sport. The awareness is growing though and this is roughly how things will evolve in the NHL too - it might take a few more high profile victims or a spectacular law suit or publicity campaign, but it will come. Obviously though, the IIHF is being its usual self, so the first example is bit silly, but hopefully the referees will use common sense. Ideally this should have been introduced more gradually, but it's high time this situation is properly addressed.

 

[VVP]

I applaud IIHF decision, I hope the NHL follows. The finishing your checks BS should end right now. We have tens of players whose careers were finished recently and they are suffering in their lives. One of the players that had been hurt by late checks was Johan Franzen. He is in the very dark place right now.

Norge rasar mot bilderna: ”Det är livsfarligt”

 

[jvcjdudu jcycyxjene]

I applaud IIHF decision, I hope the NHL follows. The finishing your checks BS should end right now. We have tens of players whose careers were finished recently and they are suffering in their lives. One of the players that had been hurt by late checks was Johan Franzen. He is in the very dark place right now.

Norge rasar mot bilderna: ”Det är livsfarligt”

Not all sports are safe. Hockey is a physical sport. Shit happens.

 

[VVP]

The thing about implementing this rule means all of those repeated offenders of those dangerous late hits will be gone from the league, that is all. Nobody will want to have such a liability on their roster. NHL doesn't need these garbage players who are there to punish more talented players. The league and the game will be so much better.

 

[VVP]

Nathan Horton, another talented player who is in the dark place

 

[VVP]

How concussion ended Keith Primeau's career.

 

[VVP]

Adam Deadmarsh - Long road from hell

 

[VVP]

Paul Kariya on his concussion and retirement

 

[kabidjan18]

Ken Dryden explained where finishing your checks came from. It was an invention by some coaches that allowed slower players to compete with faster, more skilled players. However it also brought to the game an epidemic of concussions in hockey.

Here's the problem. We weren't born yesterday. We can tell propaganda when we see it.

Think about all the implications being made by the statement above.

A. There is a known origin for the phrase "finish your checks." That is as plausible as there being a known origin for the phrase "finish your dinner." It is plausible that the phrase has no distinct origin, or has multiple origins. One person may give one account that could seem plausible, but that is at the very best an incomplete story and at worst meant to mislead.

B. Intent. How do you adjudicate the intent of someone's actions unless specifically enumerated by the people in question. It's basically impossible. Firstly, the physics of what you're saying don't really make sense because slow players who have less momentum have a much easier time redirecting than fast players. Secondly, you make a very specific causal claim about the origin of a phrase and real life events due to the malicious architecture of a few individuals dubiously attributed with this invention. This seems highly suspect for many reasons, including simply the fact that there have always been concussions in hockey.

C. There is no set definition for this phrase. Now I will grant that this parameter can be needlessly difficult to pass at times. But "finish your checks" isn't a phrase like "atomism" where we know what is meant when the phrase is being used. Different individuals use the phrase different ways and in different contexts.

So, please, try to think of what you're trying to convince us of. Yes, I know you read a book and you thought his line of thought was convincing. But you're trying to convince us that a nebulous phrase originated from a definite location perpetrated by individuals with expressed intents and directly led to the phenomena being described. The likelihood that this picture captures any significant amount of truth is ridiculously low, and it appears to me that you're offering a significant credibility excess (an epistemic injustice) to this author whose name you keep invoking.

 

[VVP]

Ken Dryden knows hockey more than a shmuck from HFBoards. So when he says finishing your checks is a fairly recent invention to reward slower players, I believe him.

Saving The Game

"Finishing your check" is so familiar a phrase it seems it must have been part of the original game. It wasn't. It means, as a checker, going after the puck carrier so that even if he makes a pass, you keep going and run into him, too late to stop the pass, but not too late to stop him from continuing up the ice with the play. This is allowed. Indeed, it's a strategy coaches insist upon. Yet if a player is hit before a pass gets to him, this is interference, and everyone agrees. Worse, "finishing your check" rewards the player who is too slow to reach the puck carrier in time, and penalizes the puck carrier who is quick enough to make the pass ahead of the checker. Worse, it puts in physical danger the puck carrier who has to deal with a checker coming at him at high speed, and the checker who has to deal with a puck carrier with his stick up to protect himself. Or worse, it encourages teammates of the puck carrier to take protection into their own hands and "obstruct." All this happened because coaches decided it was a good thing for players to go hard at a puck carrier, and referees got tired of reminding them it wasn't.
What would happen if "finishing your check" was understood as interference? If a checker faced the challenge of getting to the puck carrier in time, or risking a penalty? If a checker was made responsible for his speed, if he had to have it under control, able to go in fast enough to make the hit but slow enough to stop or veer off? To depend on the legality of personal choice, not on the illegality of "obstruction?"
We need to see hits from behind and hits to the head for what they really are. We need to see finishing a check for what it really is. These and other plays are not traditions of the game worthy of protection. They have brought danger to the game. They have hurt the game.

 

[kabidjan18]

Ken Dryden knows hockey more than a shmuck from HFBoards. So when he says finishing your checks is a fairly recent invention to reward slower players, I believe him.

Saving The Game

In epistemology this is called a "credibility excess". It's considered an "epistemic injustice." Its simple. "Jonathan Haidt said this, and he knows more about psychology than joe schmoe, so he is correct." "Thomas Kuhn said X about the history of science. Thomas Kuhn knows a lot about science. Therefore, Thomas Kuhn must be capturing the truth."

Those examples, whether you like them or not, are still better. They cited all the relevant literature. They meticulously crafted a logical structure, and answer anticipated rebuttals.

Not only are there clearly suspect assertions in this article, it's a brief op ed with no meaningful citations. And I don't want to criticize him too much, because the goal of writing such a piece isn't to do an accurate work of historiography and philosophy of science. It's just to raise awareness for a problem. It doesn't have to be correct, it merely has to be compelling.

But your worship of it is sickening to me. Dryden may be smart but you too have a brain. You can build on his argument or critique it, but use what you have, don't just worship at the statue of other minds.

 

[ForsakenSabre]

Ken Dryden knows hockey more than a shmuck from HFBoards. So when he says finishing your checks is a fairly recent invention to reward slower players, I believe him.

Saving The Game

"Finishing your check" is so familiar a phrase it seems it must have been part of the original game. It wasn't. It means, as a checker, going after the puck carrier so that even if he makes a pass, you keep going and run into him, too late to stop the pass, but not too late to stop him from continuing up the ice with the play. This is allowed. Indeed, it's a strategy coaches insist upon. Yet if a player is hit before a pass gets to him, this is interference, and everyone agrees. Worse, "finishing your check" rewards the player who is too slow to reach the puck carrier in time, and penalizes the puck carrier who is quick enough to make the pass ahead of the checker. Worse, it puts in physical danger the puck carrier who has to deal with a checker coming at him at high speed, and the checker who has to deal with a puck carrier with his stick up to protect himself. Or worse, it encourages teammates of the puck carrier to take protection into their own hands and "obstruct." All this happened because coaches decided it was a good thing for players to go hard at a puck carrier, and referees got tired of reminding them it wasn't.
What would happen if "finishing your check" was understood as interference? If a checker faced the challenge of getting to the puck carrier in time, or risking a penalty? If a checker was made responsible for his speed, if he had to have it under control, able to go in fast enough to make the hit but slow enough to stop or veer off? To depend on the legality of personal choice, not on the illegality of "obstruction?"
We need to see hits from behind and hits to the head for what they really are. We need to see finishing a check for what it really is. These and other plays are not traditions of the game worthy of protection. They have brought danger to the game. They have hurt the game.

Your appeal to authority is cute. Maybe have your own opinion? The rule and the first example is a joke. Don't like it then don't watch the NHL. Toodles

 

[kabidjan18]

Secondly. Having now read the article. You badly misrepresented what he said.

1. He never says the phrase "finishing your checks" was invented. He only says that is what it is called. There's a difference between naming a common phenomena and inventing a new one.

2. He doesn't say "finishing your checks" was invented to keep slower players in the game. He says expansion led to a more defensive game. He says finishing checks rewards players who don't get there on time. He never implies what you're going for.

So in fact, his article articulates itself quite well, just does not articulate what you somehow read into it.

 

[VVP]

Your appeal to authority is cute. Maybe have your own opinion? The rule and the first example is a joke. Don't like it then don't watch the NHL. Toodles

Haven't seen a single NHL game this season. Only highlights here and there.
As for my own opinion, it matches Ken Dryden's, that is why I applaud IIHF to be the leading this cause. It will come to the NHL at some point, but perhaps not this fast as some would want. Even though I do not really care that much about the NHL itself, I do understand how NHL trends affect every other league in the world. I know a lot about hockey development for kids and the situation in youth hockey is catastrophic when it comes to late hits. Kids are bigger and faster at younger age.

 

[VVP]

Secondly. Having now read the article. You badly misrepresented what he said.

No, I do not. Ken Dryden clearly states it came to hockey as of recent. It is designed to reward checkers who are late, why is this so hard to understand?

 

[VVP]

Finishing your check is a non-sense. It implies right away, that you are late - period. However, instead of doing the right thing and prevent yourself from interfering with another player, the coaches want the players to finish late checks. It is simply absurd and ABSOLUTELY should be called for what it is - interference. It will make the game better and what is ore important - safer!

It is also designed to trick officiating that it is absolutely ok to interfere with the player after he gets rid of the puck, as long as it wasn't too long after. This is also completely absurd and makes no sense.

 

[kabidjan18]

No, I do not. Ken Dryden clearly states it came to hockey recent. It is designed to reward checkers who are late, why is this so hard to understand?

Why do people like you always chalk things down to other people's understanding? Your initial post made a number of assertions about what his article said. You just listed the only things you got right, that he claims this was a recent phenomenon and that the recent phenomenon favors those who are late.

He never says
1. The phenomena was invented and given a name
2. It was an invention (as opposed to an organic development) that led to a spike in injuries.
3. That the invention was made to keep slow players in the game.

So the fact that 2 of your assertions are correct doesn't mean that you accurately captured his points. If I were him I'd be pretty pissed that you said 5 things and only 2 of them were what I said.

 

[VVP]

He never says
1. The phenomena was invented and given a name
2. It was an invention (as opposed to an organic development) that led to a spike in injuries.
3. That the invention was made to keep slow players in the game.

Of course he implies it. If it wasn't invented, where did it come from, please humor me.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I enjoyed the Kunin hit on Myers being referred to as a blindside check, despite hitting him through the chest, because Myers decided to admire his pass rather than look where he was going. Like, if a player just refuses to lock eyes with any oncoming opponents he's ineligible to be hit. It's ridiculous.

 

[kabidjan18]

Of course he implies it. If it wasn't invented, where did it come from, please humor me.

Who invented trade? Who invented diplomacy? Or here, who invented conditioning? Who invented the concept of a coach?

A lot of things simply rise organically. It happened once, then it happened again, then it happened enough so that people gave it a name. That's actually what he does seem to imply here because he literally says "we call it 'finishing your check.' "

Your initial post is a conspiracy theory where a coach sat down and thought "how can I keep slow players in the game. AHA! Finishing their checks!" That's silly, and not what he's going for. Furthermore, he never even hints that the motivation behind this phenomenon, even if we granted for the sake of argument that it was an invention, was for the purpose of keeping slow players in the game. So basically all you got right is that he thinks it wasn't always here and is dangerous and should stop.

 

[VVP]

Also, getting rid of finishing your checks will also increase of number of hockey players in Canada. A lot of kids simply can't take late hitting and they quit hockey simply because they know, every time they have the puck and when they get rid of it, it doesn't guarantee they will not be hit with those late hits. All of a sudden a game they love become the game they hate.