Lets fix the penalty: High Sticking

[benfranklin]

This is a penalty that has irked me at all levels of hockey. The stick touches the face on accident or on purpose, 2 minutes. There happens to be blood, 4 minutes. You try to take someones head off, 2 minutes with a hard maybe probably not for 5 minutes. A bunch of examples below.

2 minutes incidental



2 minutes on purpose



2 minutes embellishment



2 minutes friendly fire



4 minutes incidental, happens to hit the right spot and cause bleeding



Player A trips player B which causes high sticking on Player A



WTF one. Brother A goes to elbow brother B. Brother B's stick hits himself and brother A. Both get high sticking penalties.



5 minutes for decapitation




What do we do here? Call them all a major so they are reviewable? Keep them as is? Make is 2 for any incidental and 5 for "on purpose"? Blood being involved to me is silly and is purely random based on where contact is made for 99% of high sticking calls.

2 vs 4 vs 5 minutes are monster calls that can change the outcome of any game and majority of these are purely accidental compared to "real" penalties like tripping, boarding, kneeing, elbowing, etc.

Click to read more...

 

[Coffee]

Keep them as is or hire you as head of referee department

 

[Romang67]

Nowhere in the rulebook does it say anything about blood. The term in the rulebook that determines whether it's a double minor is "injury." Somewhere along the way, probably because injuries to the face area usually involves blood, refs started calling it as if the deciding factor was whether the player was bleeding.

 

[Neil Racki]

Kuz was suspended for that one

Rules like every sport is subjective to a degree

Refs in most sports normally get it right

AI will be making the calls soon enough anyway

 

[benfranklin]

Nowhere in the rulebook does it say anything about blood. The term in the rulebook that determines whether it's a double minor is "injury." Somewhere along the way, probably because injuries to the face area usually involves blood, refs started calling it as if the deciding factor was whether the player was bleeding.

Thats actually very interesting and im guessing most dont know that.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Thats actually very interesting and im guessing most dont know that.

Probably because it’s false. The rule book does mention blood. Blood is not required for a double minor, but blood does require a double minor.

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders and makes contact with his opponent’s neck, face or head so that injury results, in the manner of drawing blood or otherwise, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty.

 

[benfranklin]

Probably because it’s false. The rule book does mention blood.

lol alright then. Looking it up...

Looked it up. He seems right. "Blood" is not mentioned.

In the NHL, a double minor for high sticking is assessed when a player inadvertently makes high-stick contact with an opponent, causing injury. Here are the key aspects of the rule:

1. Definition: A double minor is called when a player commits a high-sticking infraction that results in injury to an opponent.
2. Duration: The penalty lasts for 4 minutes, meaning the offending player serves two 2-minute penalties consecutively.
3. Injury Requirement: For a double minor to be called, the player who was hit must be injured as a result of the high sticking. If there is no injury, a standard minor penalty (2 minutes) may be assessed instead.
4. Power Play: The team that was fouled receives a power play, and if they score during the first 2 minutes, the second half of the penalty still remains in effect.

This rule is intended to emphasize player safety and penalize actions that could lead to serious injuries.


Interesting when/where blood became the official sign of injury. Its pretty universally a thing at all levels of non face cage hockey.

Double update, found the official rulebook:

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part ofhis stick above the shoulders and makes contact with his opponent’sneck, face or head so that injury results, in the manner of drawing blood or otherwise, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty.Referees making this call shall have the option (but not the obligation)to review video of the play for the purpose of confirming (or not) theiroriginal call on the ice, and, in particular, whether the stick causing theapparent injury was actually the stick of the Player being penalized.Such reviews will be conducted exclusively by the Referee(s) on theice in consultation with other On-Ice Officials, as appropriate, usingthe technology (for example, a handheld tablet or television orcomputer monitor) provided for the Official(s) at ice level. On any suchreview, the only contact between the On-Ice Official(s) and the NHLSituation Room shall be for the sole purpose of ensuring the Refereeis receiving any and all video he may request and that he has accessto all the appropriate replay angles he may need to review the penaltycall. There shall be no other consultation between the Referee and theNHL Situation Room, or with any other non-game participant.

 

[Romang67]

Probably because it’s false. The rule book does mention blood.

Huh. You're right. That didn't show up when I searched for blood in the rulebook.

60.1

High-sticking – For “high-sticking the puck”, refer to Rule 80.
A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

60.3

Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of
his stick above the shoulders and makes contact with his opponent’s neck, face or head so that injury results, in the manner of drawing blood or otherwise, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty. Referees making this call shall have the option (but not the obligation) to review video of the play for the purpose of confirming (or not) their original call on the ice, and, in particular, whether the stick causing the apparent injury was actually the stick of the Player being penalized. Such reviews will be conducted exclusively by the Referee(s) on the ice in consultation with other On-Ice Officials, as appropriate, using the technology (for example, a handheld tablet or television or computer monitor) provided for the Official(s) at ice level. On any such review, the only contact between the On-Ice Official(s) and the NHL Situation Room shall be for the sole purpose of ensuring the Referee is receiving any and all video he may request and that he has access to all the appropriate replay angles he may need to review the penalty call. There shall be no other consultation between the Referee and the NHL Situation Room, or with any other non-game participant.

Then yeah, I agree with OP. The standard set where drawing blood is the black-and-white rule that determines a double minor is silly. As far as I'm aware, this didn't use to be the case. I don't think it used to have the "in the manner of drawing blood or otherwise" part in the rulebook, but I could be wrong.

Edit: Yeah, it didn't use to be the case. The 2015-16 Rulebook didn't have any mention of blood in the high-sticking rule. The 2021-22 Rulebook did. Not sure when they changed it.

 

[Romang67]

Apparently the change was made in the 2019 edition of the Rulebook. Changed the same year they added the possibility for review of double minor high-sticking penalties.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Every high sticking penalty reviewed by HFBoards user benfranklin to determine if a penalty is necessary and to determine the punishment

He shall have complete authority to issue any punishment he sees fit, no appeal process

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I think one of the key incidents that resulted in the way things are called would be Marian Hossa accidentally high sticking Brian Berard and then he almost lost an eye

 

[x Tame Impala]

Guys should just be wearing cages anyway

 

[NVious]

Guys should just be wearing cages anyway

They shouldn't even be playing Hockey, it's a dangerous and stupid game.

 

[x Tame Impala]

They shouldn't even be playing Hockey, it's a dangerous and stupid game.

Guys like you act like if they're going to wear a cage they may as well put on a dress too don't help anything. Cages are fine.

 

[NVious]

Guys like you act like if they're going to wear a cage they may as well put on a dress too don't help anything. Cages are fine.

You said they should, it's a personal choice, they should have the choice. The visor rule is hella lame.

 

[bossram]

Somehow OP has identified the one rule/penalty that literally no one has a problem with, yet feels it must be "fixed".

 

[SladeWilson23]

You said they should, it's a personal choice, they should have the choice. The visor rule is hella lame.

I always wondered. If every player CHOSE to wear a visor, would you actually be ok that?

 

[NVious]

I always wondered. If every player CHOSE to wear a visor, would you actually be ok that?

People can do what they want, I don't care. The quetion doesn't apply to me as much as if other people could handle players NOT wearing them?

 

[SladeWilson23]

People can do what they want, I don't care. The quetion doesn't apply to me as much as if other people could handle players NOT wearing them?

I don't think fans care at all either way.

 

[JPeeper]

Literally nothing wrong with the rule.

Oh no, 1 in 1000 times a weird play happens and now the rule is broken, oh my god!!!

The only rule that needs to be changed is getting rid of the stupid off-side challenge.