Why isn't checking allowed in women's hockey?

[Roomtemperature]

I mean the men's tournament isn't filled with devastating checks but its got enough physicality but why isn't it aloud at all in women's hockey. As an outsider it just seems ridiculous

Click to read more...

 

[KingKopitar11*]

I think it's because women have a much smaller frame than men, so I guess an average hit would likely result in an injury.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I think it's because women have a much smaller frame than men, so I guess an average hit would likely result in an injury.

Not if its coming from another smaller framed women.

The reason is simple, Womens hockey as a sport was started by men, and rules written by men. Can't have those fragile dame's hurting eachother.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=775_1259128595

 

[Guardian17]

We have woman's MMA so I see no reason why we can't allow women to bodycheck.

 

[SteenMachine]

They probably learned to play without it long enough to never have to rely upon it. They don't have to worry about fighting each other over sloppy or late hits, they don't have to run their mouths to draw bad penalties, they just play the game. The big hits would just add to the aggression that they don't want to get involved in. Not saying women can't be tough, just that they've never been coached to play that way and don't value it as much so it doesn't feel like it's "missing" from their games.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I think it's because women have a much smaller frame than men, so I guess an average hit would likely result in an injury.

It would be women hitting women, though. It's not like it's men playing against women, and hitting being allowed.

Also, women aren't as fragile as your post makes it sound. They compete in other physical sports, like rugby, boxing, MMA, and various martial arts. So I'm not sure why physical contact in hockey would be any more dangerous than those sports.

 

[Teemu Salami]

I would watch more if there was checking. It was disappointing in the Canada vs USA game when there was a checking penalty. I had no idea that was a thing.

 

[Jacob]

There's no good reason that I can come up with. Females playing in high school with the boys have to play by the same rules. Allowing hitting in international women's hockey would probably help to legitimize it and grow the fan base.

 

[En7ropy]

In one word? Sexism

There's no other reasoning, anything else is a fallacy

 

[v-man]

The actual and official reason is because the other countries are so far behind Canada and the States that checking would widen the gap even more. They want the sport to be at a more competitive level before allowing it. Canada and the US have stated many times that they'd prefer to play with checking, but for the above reason it's still at least a decade away at the international level. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

 

[friction]

Canada and the US have stated many times that they'd prefer to play with checking, but for the above reason it's still at least a decade away at the international level. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

Untrue.

http://www.tsn.ca/cis/story/?id=290264

Angela Ruggiero - "...It's better for the game that there's no checking. There's more flow to the game, there's more skill involved."

Emme Laaksonen - "When bodychecking is not allowed, there is more skill that players can use, so that's why I think it's good to keep the rules the way they are."


I feel like the consensus is that the top tier women are curious about it, but feel that to grow the game it's necessary to keep it out.

 

[Verviticus]

its insanely unfair to teams that arent canada or USA to have checking because of the disparity. i cant remember who it was but i remember watching USA v something in 2010 and every time they even touched slightly the non-usa players would go ****ing flying away like it was in a cartoon

they should probably have a different set of rules for canada/usa because they can handle it on account of not having like, 40lb differences between players who are only 160 or whatever to begin with (im eyeballing/guessing the numbers please dont kill me)

 

[Pominville Knows]

The actual and official reason is because the other countries are so far behind Canada and the States that checking would widen the gap even more. They want the sport to be at a more competitive level before allowing it. Canada and the US have stated many times that they'd prefer to play with checking, but for the above reason it's still at least a decade away at the international level. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

I would think being able to play a tough defensive game with hits would make it easier to hold the fort, since bodychecking is a more common talent than Art Ross-offense anyway.

The whole thing stems from the supposed fragile women thing and some claim that women are too different in size to be able to take it. Have anyone seen Chara ans St. Louis?

 

[v-man]

Untrue.

http://www.tsn.ca/cis/story/?id=290264

Angela Ruggiero - "...It's better for the game that there's no checking. There's more flow to the game, there's more skill involved."

Emme Laaksonen - "When bodychecking is not allowed, there is more skill that players can use, so that's why I think it's good to keep the rules the way they are."


I feel like the consensus is that the top tier women are curious about it, but feel that to grow the game it's necessary to keep it out.

Untrue? That article confirms everything I said. They're keeping it out to grow the game, and top players like Wickenheiser and Ruggiero state that personally they'd like for it to be allowed, but can understand why it's not.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Until there is some worldwide parity between the rest of the world and the two North American powerhouses, there seems to be a legit reason to not allow bodychecks. Now, for USA and Canada, they might as well just turn them loose against each other. You can see that the girls can get chippy and look for payback too.

Who knows, they might be more physical than the men. XD

 

[Balderis19]

I think the reason for it (correctly) is because womens hockey is not as developed as mens in that - there are women playing and also 15, 16 year old girls (basically children). I think that is the reason why hitting is not and allowed and it should not be in female hockey

 

[En7ropy]

The actual and official reason is because the other countries are so far behind Canada and the States that checking would widen the gap even more. They want the sport to be at a more competitive level before allowing it. Canada and the US have stated many times that they'd prefer to play with checking, but for the above reason it's still at least a decade away at the international level. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

Please explained how in a decade things would be better? It's just another argument to keep it out. The "not yet ready" is a vague statement at best, no definite road-map on how to achieve body checking integration and even less of a quantitative guide line of when they'd be "ready".

If anything, one could argue that allowing more physicality in the women's game in the end would help with tightening the gap. Less skilled teams could more likely ice a team composed of less skilled hard working players that would slow the game down to their advantage. Right now there is little recourse to the skill and speed of North American hockey.

 

[canuck2010]

I think it's because women have a much smaller frame than men, so I guess an average hit would likely result in an injury.

Skin, bone and muscle all have the same tolerance. Force equals mass times acceleration. The women would be fine.

 

[ElTailR]

If you looked at the SUI-CAN game, you would have understand (the check on Laura Benz in 2nd period)

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Please explained how in a decade things would be better? It's just another argument to keep it out. The "not yet ready" is a vague statement at best, no definite road-map on how to achieve body checking integration and even less of a quantitative guide line of when they'd be "ready".

If anything, one could argue that allowing more physicality in the women's game in the end would help with tightening the gap. Less skilled teams could more likely ice a team composed of less skilled hard working players that would slow the game down to their advantage. Right now there is little recourse to the skill and speed of North American hockey.

Well, if they're going to play some grinding game or trapping game on big ice, you do need the horses for that system. Which means bigger women with wheels and a lot of strength. Which means investment in training and facilities.

 

[canuck2010]

Untrue.

http://www.tsn.ca/cis/story/?id=290264

Angela Ruggiero - "...It's better for the game that there's no checking. There's more flow to the game, there's more skill involved."

Emme Laaksonen - "When bodychecking is not allowed, there is more skill that players can use, so that's why I think it's good to keep the rules the way they are."


I feel like the consensus is that the top tier women are curious about it, but feel that to grow the game it's necessary to keep it out.

Then it's not hockey, only soccer on ice.

 

[En7ropy]

If you looked at the SUI-CAN game, you would have understand (the check on Laura Benz in 2nd period)

Anyone getting caught with her head down like that would have the same result no matter the gender, if anything she probably wouldn't have left herself open like that knowing a hit could be coming her way.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

If you looked at the SUI-CAN game, you would have understand (the check on Laura Benz in 2nd period)

Partially. It seems like Benz didn't have her head up when that happened. If checking is expected, it becomes a necessity for the players to be trained to expect being hit as soon as someone approaches.

 

[sepHF]

I was just thinking about this today. It makes no sense.

Back when I played minor hockey there would be a few girls spread across the teams and they would throw the body / take hits but women at the highest level can't? Cmon...