What is "boarding"

[Canadienna]

I just saw this hit from the Tampa/Florida game.



But I wanted to have a broader conversation on plays like this. This to me is one of the real grey areas in hockey. Is this "boarding"?

It reminds me of this hit on Krug from Muzzin.



It's the whole "dangerous distance from the boards" argument. The rulebook definition for boarding is pretty stupid and essentially leaves it completely vague what's boarding and what's not.

"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."

It just leaves it wide open. A boarding penalty is any check that causes an opponent hit the boards violently or dangerously? That's completely subjective. A hard hit into the boards in general is pretty "violent". If someone's off balance and goes headfirst it's worse than if the player's stable? Even with the exact same hit?

We all tend to think of boarding as a hit in the numbers, but is it really more than that, and where should the line be?

 

[LOFIN]

We all tend to think of boarding as a hit in the numbers, but is it really more than that, and where should the line be?

A rule 43, Checking from behind exists, but it's never used in the NHL for some reason.

In my opinion, you hit someone from the numbers, its rule 43. Minor or a major.

If you hit a player in a way where he can't brace himself for a hit against the boards (you hit him when he is a feet or a meter away), that's boarding.

International rules have always made a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

You're right there's definitely grey area.

I think the Hornqvist one is worse because he comes from a severe angle and from the "Blind side" like the commentator mentions. I could see that being a boarding call. And I notice it's more likely to be called when you come from an angle like that even if it's not on the numbers.

The Muzzin one however I see no reason to call that Boarding unless the ref decides it's necessary because of 'Game Management' (which we all know exists). Muzzin comes almost face on, that's a good hit, regardless of crash into the boards and distance it came from, since Krug should have seen it coming and been ready.

That's my understanding and how I'd call it if I was a ref.

 

[Lolonegoal]

I don't think either of those are penalties. Big checks shouldn't be against the rule.

Boarding should be when a players in a vulnerable position and that gets intentionally taken advantage of and puts him in risk of injury. Normally boards are actually a bit of a cushion to be checked as opposed to hitting the ice. Boarding is the results of a combination of the player and the boards position in a manner that serves the opposite (eg. vulnerable neck/head).

If the plays in OP are boarding and a penalty that you might as well rename it checking in the rulebook.

 

[NHL Review]

There is always going to be some grey area but I think the wording for boarding right now is OK. Both of the plays in the OP I would consider boarding as any significant contact is going to end badly. In a best case scenario, the player may be able to somewhat brace for the impact of the hit but they cannot protect themselves from the impact with the boards. As in, Krug or Sergachev could minimize the force of the hit and “stumble”, but their momentum will still carry them into the boards. Needless to say that is still extremely dangerous

Nothing being taken away from the game from having players let up this distance away from the boards. If a player is hit from farther out and they end up “sliding” a significant distance into the boards, that is a different story

 

[tarheelhockey]

That’s a tough play to watch, but I don’t have an issue with that type of hit. Sergachev held the puck till he was in an increasingly dangerous position, whereas Hornqvist threw a legitimate body check to take him off the puck.

Not sure how we can have a game with body contact where players can become ineligible targets just by skating toward the boards.

 

[cactusjack]

For me the Muzzin one is the maximum of
Time after having pass the puck i think should be tolerate. Anything later, its only to hurt.

 

[NHL Review]

That’s a tough play to watch, but I don’t have an issue with that type of hit. Sergachev held the puck till he was in an increasingly dangerous position, whereas Hornqvist threw a legitimate body check to take him off the puck.

Not sure how we can have a game with body contact where players can become ineligible targets just by skating toward the boards.

Players are ineligible to be checked (with force) in these situations, as its reasonably expected they won’t be able to protect themselves. That doesn’t take away from the game

 

[LOFIN]

Just kinda realized I just answered the question of "what is boarding" instead of that hit on Sergachev.

For me, that's boarding. Every day of the week.

 

[Oddbob]

That’s a tough play to watch, but I don’t have an issue with that type of hit. Sergachev held the puck till he was in an increasingly dangerous position, whereas Hornqvist threw a legitimate body check to take him off the puck.

Not sure how we can have a game with body contact where players can become ineligible targets just by skating toward the boards.

Yeah I agree. Unfortunate landing for the players for sure, but the hits themselves were clean, just hard.

 

[NYR94]

 

[MrLunatik]

I always think of boarding as "it might technically not break any rules, but is still dangerous, so we'll call it boarding"

 

[tarheelhockey]

Players are ineligible to be checked (with force) in these situations, as its reasonably expected they won’t be able to protect themselves. That doesn’t take away from the game

The thing is, he was fully eligible* to be checked until he skated himself into the danger zone.

What’s a forechecker supposed to do there? Play the puck and get deked into orbit? Back off and just let the opponent have an easy escape?

The correct hockey play is to put a body on the guy and force him to release the puck. That’s what Hornqvist did, as cleanly as possible. If he doesn’t have an option to throw a hit in that scenario, then the game becomes contact-free in a hurry because D aren’t going to miss the implications of having a no-hit zone.



* I would argue he was eligible to be hit the entire time, and that this isn’t boarding at all. Hornqvist simply knocked him off his feet and caused him to land near the boards, which is not the same thing as boarding him.

 

[NHL Review]

The thing is, he was fully eligible* to be checked until he skated himself into the danger zone.

What’s a forechecker supposed to do there? Play the puck and get deked into orbit? Back off and just let the opponent have an easy escape?

The correct hockey play is to put a body on the guy and force him to release the puck. That’s what Hornqvist did, as cleanly as possible. If he doesn’t have an option to throw a hit in that scenario, then the game becomes contact-free in a hurry because D aren’t going to miss the implications of having a no-hit zone.



* I would argue he was eligible to be hit the entire time, and that this isn’t boarding at all. Hornqvist simply knocked him off his feet and caused him to land near the boards, which is not the same thing as boarding him.

Stick on ice to play the puck and to minimize the impact, or wait until he gets closer to the boards. You’re correct that he lands near the boards, but the grey area that’s being referred to includes that distance. Couple of questions that need to be asked:

• How far was the player away from the boards?

• Did the play slide into the boards or directly impact? If he slid, how far did the player slide into them?

• Was the player able to protect himself from violently impacting the boards?

• Did the hitting player attempt to minimize the impact of the hit?

For the Sergachev hit think it’s close enough to the boards to be boarding, but far enough to where Sergachev can’t protect himself. He doesn’t impact the boards immediately but doesn’t take long to do so. Hornqvist sees he is in a vulnerable spot, makes no attempt at minimizing the hit while he has plenty of time and opportunity to do so. To me , that adds up to boarding

 

[njdevils1982]

boarding is 0:39 to 0:45

it's in there…….watch THAT and tell me what the f*** is boarding

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Two things.

1. A hit from behind

2. Literally whatever the f*** the refs feel like

 

[Sol]

I feel like there's so much up to interpretation as to what constitutes boarding. I think the word "defenseless" has so much grey area. I can't comprehend how you can be a defenseless player when you're hit from the side. I feel like that eliminates any kind of personal accountability in the sense that if there is a player approaching you from the side you should be aware of it.

I always thought boarding was only a hit from behind until I read the definition. It's completely stupid since the term "defenseless" is unquantifiable. The hit on Sergachev wasn't a defenseless player being hit. It was sergachev not aware of his surroundings and not planting his foot down for leverage which isn't Hornqvists fault.


Dumb definition.

 

[Sol]

Stick on ice to play the puck and to minimize the impact, or wait until he gets closer to the boards. You’re correct that he lands near the boards, but the grey area that’s being referred to includes that distance. Couple of questions that need to be asked:

• How far was the player away from the boards?

• Did the play slide into the boards or directly impact? If he slid, how far did the player slide into them?

• Was the player able to protect himself from violently impacting the boards?

• Did the hitting player attempt to minimize the impact of the hit?

For the Sergachev hit think it’s close enough to the boards to be boarding, but far enough to where Sergachev can’t protect himself. He doesn’t impact the boards immediately but doesn’t take long to do so. Hornqvist sees he is in a vulnerable spot, makes no attempt at minimizing the hit while he has plenty of time and opportunity to do so. To me , that adds up to boarding

This is where the league will become a bigger joke than it already is if Sergachevs hit is remotely considered boarding. Sergachev fell into the boards with minimal impact into them, Hornqvist played the body, he didn't charge him. He hit him from the side, let me ask you this, what the hell did Sergachev do to protect himself from a hit that came from his peripheral. Nothing. That's on him. People act like he was catapulted into the boards. He wasn't. That's on sergachev. Hornqvist did everything right.

 

[hacksaw7]

We need to

1) stop picking these hits apart

2) stop putting cameras all over the rinks. So that we have a replay of every super hard hit at every angle to replay over and over and pick apart. What does it lead to? A bunch of hockey nannies acting like Helen Lovejoy when somebody gets hit in the head. I'd rather not know exactly what happened, plead ignorance, and let the game still be physical. To many review, too many rules on how to hit a guy. Look at the joke that is the NFL. You get pushed into a QB's knee...YOU get the penalty. You tackle a QB and "drop your weight on him" 15 yards

All this is leading is the slow removal of hitting from the game. The protecting of idiot players who are unaware of their surroundings. It isn't the responsibility of the hitter to make sure your safe. If his elbows are down, his skates or on the ice...the hit is clean. Head contact or no head contact

 

[NHL Review]

This is where the league will become a bigger joke than it already is if Sergachevs hit is remotely considered boarding. Sergachev fell into the boards with minimal impact into them, Hornqvist played the body, he didn't charge him. He hit him from the side, let me ask you this, what the hell did Sergachev do to protect himself from a hit that came from his peripheral. Nothing. That's on him. People act like he was catapulted into the boards. He wasn't. That's on sergachev. Hornqvist did everything right.

I’m not sure I would say he “fell into the boards with minimum impact” when he went hard into them and suffered an injury. I think even if you don’t think it’s a penalty that’s a given

And again, the onus is on the hitter to make sure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position. But if you think that Sergachev could’ve “protected himself” better, I’d be curious what you would think that would entail. I’ve seen a couple comments say that but they aren’t specific other than “he should’ve got rid of the puck sooner”. That’s not what I would considered as putting yourself in a vulnerable spot especially when Hornqvist is coming from the blindside

 

[deca guard]

I just saw this hit from the Tampa/Florida game.



But I wanted to have a broader conversation on plays like this. This to me is one of the real grey areas in hockey. Is this "boarding"?

It reminds me of this hit on Krug from Muzzin.



It's the whole "dangerous distance from the boards" argument. The rulebook definition for boarding is pretty stupid and essentially leaves it completely vague what's boarding and what's not.

"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."

It just leaves it wide open. A boarding penalty is any check that causes an opponent hit the boards violently or dangerously? That's completely subjective. A hard hit into the boards in general is pretty "violent". If someone's off balance and goes headfirst it's worse than if the player's stable? Even with the exact same hit?

We all tend to think of boarding as a hit in the numbers, but is it really more than that, and where should the line be?

this thread is about a century over due ! theres so many times a player makes a civilized hit and the guy falls wrong into boards and the hitter becomes a villian . and the dumbass nhl instead of having a panel set up of say 7 ex nhlers doing a weekly show discussing these type hits , plus other plays coaches request go in front of the board , to get everybody on the same page its season after season of nothing by a bunch of washed up idiots running the league that nobody can get at . so topics like this stay in the dark and nothing gets fixed . then at least once a weak some idiot on this forum says when ever a guy is hit from behind and lands wrong ' you cant hit in the numbers ' , mean while guys are hit in the numbers 24/7 . grapes used to say it every goddamn time a guy fell wrong into boards . next play a dman going after puck by boards is hit in back buts not injured and grapes says nothing . these people running nhl are washed up and need a huge house cleaning , but we all already know that

 

[NHL Review]

We need to

1) stop picking these hits apart

2) stop putting cameras all over the rinks. So that we have a replay of every super hard hit at every angle to replay over and over and pick apart. What does it lead to? A bunch of hockey nannies acting like Helen Lovejoy when somebody gets hit in the head. I'd rather not know exactly what happened, plead ignorance, and let the game still be physical. To many review, too many rules on how to hit a guy. Look at the joke that is the NFL. You get pushed into a QB's knee...YOU get the penalty. You tackle a QB and "drop your weight on him" 15 yards

All this is leading is the slow removal of hitting from the game. The protecting of idiot players who are unaware of their surroundings. It isn't the responsibility of the hitter to make sure your safe. If his elbows are down, his skates or on the ice...the hit is clean. Head contact or no head contact

1. Caring about head injuries doesn’t make you a “nanny” and doesn’t make the game any less physical. Most of the hits to the head are from bad technique or reckless behavior which can be fixed. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want that to be done.

2. The NFL changed their rules because they were being sued into oblivion. They had no choice. That will come for the NHL one day if they don’t start caring about the bad hits now. Do you want all hits to the head to be illegal like in some other leagues and in the IIHF? Because I can guarantee that happens if you don’t enforce the rulebook we have now. Next lawsuit that is brought will force changes to be made, as what has happened in the past

3. It is literally the responsibility of the hitter to make sure the player being hit is not in a vulnerable position. That’s in the rulebook when it comes to boarding. So thats personal opinion and not based on the rules

 

[jfhabs]

Boarding like all penalties, is when a ref decides to blow the whistle... so inconsistent, hard to know what's a penalty and what isn't these days

 

[hacksaw7]

1. Caring about head injuries doesn’t make you a “nanny” and doesn’t make the game any less physical. Most of the hits to the head are from bad technique or reckless behavior which can be fixed. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want that to be done.

2. The NFL changed their rules because they were being sued into oblivion. They had no choice. That will come for the NHL one day if they don’t start caring about the bad hits now. Do you want all hits to the head to be illegal like in some other leagues and in the IIHF? Because I can guarantee that happens if you don’t enforce the rulebook we have now. Next lawsuit that is brought will force changes to be made, as what has happened in the past

3. It is literally the responsibility of the hitter to make sure the player being hit is not in a vulnerable position. That’s in the rulebook when it comes to boarding. So thats personal opinion and not based on the rules

We shouldn't be letting the law ruins sports in this country. Make it so pro athletes can't sue as they are doing now once their careers are over for injuries sustained while they played

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Biggest myth with hockey fans is that they think boarding means "hit from behind into the boards".

The definition is "being thrown violently into the boards". Yes that can be from behind and the majority of the boarding calls are this, but it does not have to be exclusively from behind.

The rule of thumb I noticed is if the players gets hits with a normal hit but just goes into the boards awkward, or it's something they should see coming (straight on) then it's normally not going to be called. But if the player is vulnerable and the opposing players sees this and crushes him, and he violently goes into the boards, then it's getting called.

First video is absolutely boarding as he was vulnerable, the second video the boston player tried to check the player back, completely saw him, but was overpowered. They are never going to call that.