Northerner
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2017
- 1,764
- 424
Why isn't checking allowed in women's hockey?
- Thread starter Roomtemperature
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
BagHead
Registered User
Apparently its the same reason why 16 year old boys beat up on the womens national team in practices.
Northerner
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2017
- 1,764
- 424
Well, yeah. On a couple different levels but I won't get into it.
As said above, one of the reasons is an off-year Warrior varsity team beat the USA women not long ago.
That said, sure there are women who are "tough" (women do compete in martial arts - Ronda Rousey and all them), but I mean, they can't take brutality on the same level as men, I don't think.
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 50,724
- 28,179
I assumed it was some relic of a time when physical contact was considered unbecoming of women, but stuck around because there are no female pro leagues and therefore they have day jobs and families that they all have to go home to and they can't be all beat up for that.
So basically there's no good reason why hitting shouldn't be allowed. It's the current year.
So basically there's no good reason why hitting shouldn't be allowed. It's the current year.
BagHead
Registered User
I find it hard to fathom why Warroad beating the US woman's team ten years ago has anything to do with durability. Seems like that has more to do with a disparity of skill level than it does toughness (and when I say "toughness" I'm talking about durability and the ability to withstand some physical punishment from peers). In any case, we're not talking about men hitting women, we're talking about women hitting women. I would argue that Chara checking Gaudreau is more dangerous than allowing checking in women's hockey. Should we make a rule against giant men checking tiny men, too?
Northerner
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2017
- 1,764
- 424
BagHead
Registered User
Advocating for it? That would be a strong way of putting it that probably goes beyond what I'm saying about it. All I've been saying is that the rule against it was born of an era where women were seen as too delicate for it. I don't think that's a particularly fair or accurate assessment of their abilities. So I think the rule shouldn't have existed in the first place, but I also don't think it's that big of a deal that it does because both the game of hockey itself is moving away from it anyway, and the women are allowed some wiggle room on it, in reality. It's sort of a "*wink, wink* I didn't see that check unless it was too big," rule in how it's enforced. Sort of like "charging" in men's hockey.
If you want to see a physical, intense game, then watch Canada-USA.
They allow physical play. They allow body contact. They allow a player to rub the opponent out against the boards to take them off the puck. They allow hits. What they don't allow is Body Checking. They don't allow a player to run the opposition through the boards, nor do they allow someone to drive their shoulder through somebody's chest in open ice.
The first WWC in 1990, they allowed body checking. The Canadians and Americans were so dominant when body checking was allowed that they banned hitting. I truly believe if they didn't, there would be no women's hockey at the Olympics because the other countries would not want to play especially in the early years of the game. Only Canada and the USA put the money into the women's programs to develop and nurture the game.
THERE IS NO SEXISM INVOLVED!!! The only sexism I've seen in IIHF women's hockey is Hockey Canada's decision to make the girls wear pink at the 1990 world championships.
They allow physical play. They allow body contact. They allow a player to rub the opponent out against the boards to take them off the puck. They allow hits. What they don't allow is Body Checking. They don't allow a player to run the opposition through the boards, nor do they allow someone to drive their shoulder through somebody's chest in open ice.
The first WWC in 1990, they allowed body checking. The Canadians and Americans were so dominant when body checking was allowed that they banned hitting. I truly believe if they didn't, there would be no women's hockey at the Olympics because the other countries would not want to play especially in the early years of the game. Only Canada and the USA put the money into the women's programs to develop and nurture the game.
THERE IS NO SEXISM INVOLVED!!! The only sexism I've seen in IIHF women's hockey is Hockey Canada's decision to make the girls wear pink at the 1990 world championships.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
JAS 39 Gripen
Registered User
Remember a hilarious text I read while researching this exact question a few years ago. It said that women shouldnt risk hurting their reproductive organs by being physical against each other in sports. Some rule that was written 100 years ago. Hilarious.
Women's hockey, even without hitting, have a higher rate of concussion than men's sports (specifically football) according to one NCAA study, I believe.
The level of play is very low in these games. Every game I think finished with one team scoring 0 or 1 goal. Just terrible. Apart from 2-3 teams the rest just can't play. And to be honest Canada USA yeah they skate better they make less mistakes but overall they don't play good hockey. No team play at all. Where's the great passes, the combination plays?
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 67,613
- 22,796
USA and Canada women don’t play good hockey? I’m going to SMH on that one and disagree.
They should however 100% be playing the same basic sport and that includes allowing checking.
They should however 100% be playing the same basic sport and that includes allowing checking.
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 67,613
- 22,796
“Our women are big and tough, but yours aren’t. Let’s change the rules so you will still come out and play.”
If that’s the root cause, that’s a real shame.
Definitely agree with your comments about what is allowed and it is physical I agree.
I believe the IIHF already has this rule. 2 minutes for exerting too much force !
as its been said they play exhibition against teenaged boys and often lose. so objectively ( ignoring their sex) its not great hockey by any available metric.
And people have said that polls indicate that the women who are currently competing in no check hockey, prefer it that way. If, through consensus, they express a desire to keep checking banned, you would want to overrule them for the sake of your sense of consistency ?
I have no idea about the current reasons why they don't allow checking. I think ( and I may be wrong) that it was initially paternalistic. But if they decide they want the game to be check free, I say they are the ones who get to make that call.
right now outside of north america its a race for bronze, adding checking isnt going to change that much. Without checking its going to be ( usa-canada-X) or ( canada-usa-X) for probably a pretty long time. and its clear that for all of the " we don't wan't checking" there is some bad blood between the two countries.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Watching a hell of a hockey game last night, there was one single occasion I noticed the lack of body checking, and it was when a Canadian player layed what would be a solid check in the NHL, but rightfully received a 2 minute penalty. Other than that, the game didn't need it. The skill alone was enough for me to be thoroughly entertained.
