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

[sandysan]

It has nothing to do with sexism or that women are fragile. It has everything to do with the massive gaps between the couple skilled countries against other teams who have to play 15 year olds to ice a team. If hitting was allowed, Canada and the US would widen their gap even more than it already is.

and what was the reason to prevent women from ski jumping prior to this year ? or to prevent women from running marathons so long ago that some fake registered as men ?

I'm not enough of a fan of women's hockey to say whether they should or should not allow hitting, but I never unsderstood why there was no hitting in momen's hockey. from an egalitarian position, it makes no sense, we dont prohibit slapshots or blocking shots in womens hockey. Perhaps its my familiarity with the mens game but the only appeal of the us canada games is that there is some animosity between the teams and when the refs put the whistles partially away, that's when the games are the most exciting.

 

[Kyndig]

Comparing hockey checking to MMA is stupid. They have weight divisions in MMA.

Most teams don't have funding for weight training even, you have a lot more size discrepancies. Imagine the average male throwing a check on a tiny Japanese woman because thats how big Hilary Knight is.

You want to grow the sport one of the best ways is to leave checking out of it, so women of all sizes have a chance.

 

[En7ropy]

Well, I can tell you that from serving on a board at both the local and district level, that if checking were introduced to girls hockey, you would see participation drop big time. You see many girls play with the boys up until they hit checking age, then head over to the girls side for the simple fact that they don't want checking. If they did, they would continue playing with the boys...and a few do. But 99 out of 100 do not.

Girls and boys are different. There's no harm in saying that.

At 14-15 years old I'm inclined to believe there are other factors to why girls wouldn't want to play with boys.

Similar arguments are being made for boys body-checking (especially in Alberta) but is quickly debunked by pointing out the non contact rec leagues that many enjoy (it's kind of a reverse issue to the girls but they don't have the alternative, everyone just assumes they wouldn't like it)

99 out of a 100... please don't state numbers if you're pulling them out of somewhere the sun dun shine.

 

[MuckOG]

and what was the reason to prevent women from ski jumping prior to this year ? or to prevent women from running marathons so long ago that some fake registered as men ?

I'm not enough of a fan of women's hockey to say whether they should or should not allow hitting, but I never unsderstood why there was no hitting in momen's hockey. from an egalitarian position, it makes no sense, we dont prohibit slapshots or blocking shots in womens hockey. Perhaps its my familiarity with the mens game but the only appeal of the us canada games is that there is some animosity between the teams and when the refs put the whistles partially away, that's when the games are the most exciting.

Because women and girls don't want it. It's actually very simple. In all my years of serving on youth boards, I can say without hesitation that at no time has any girl or parent of girl come to me and say "I wish the girls would start checking". Never. Not once.

 

[Plante]

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

I'll be sure to call pond hockey that then.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

My sister said she stopped paying hockey after switching to girls hockey when she was 15 because it wasn't "aggressive or fun enough".

 

[MuckOG]

At 14-15 years old I'm inclined to believe there are other factors to why girls wouldn't want to play with boys.

Similar arguments are being made for boys body-checking (especially in Alberta) but is quickly debunked by pointing out the non contact rec leagues that many enjoy (it's kind of a reverse issue to the girls but they don't have the alternative, everyone just assumes they wouldn't like it)

99 out of a 100... please don't state numbers if you're pulling them out of somewhere the sun dun shine.

Just from my experience, which included talking to the parents of these girls. Obviously it's not scientific.

I'm not saying that checking SHOULDN'T be introduced, just that I've never seen any support for doing so among the players and parents.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I'll be sure to call pond hockey that then.

You don't check people when you play shinny?

 

[En7ropy]

Comparing hockey checking to MMA is stupid. They have weight divisions in MMA.

Most teams don't have funding for weight training even, you have a lot more size discrepancies. Imagine the average male throwing a check on a tiny Japanese woman because thats how big Hilary Knight is.

You want to grow the sport one of the best ways is to leave checking out of it, so women of all sizes have a chance.

Chara, say hell to St-Louis...
one of many other examples in the NHL alone, hockey is played by players of all statures.

 

[sandysan]

Well, I can tell you that from serving on a board at both the local and district level, that if checking were introduced to girls hockey, you would see participation drop big time. You see many girls play with the boys up until they hit checking age, then head over to the girls side for the simple fact that they don't want checking. If they did, they would continue playing with the boys...and a few do. But 99 out of 100 do not.

Girls and boys are different. There's no harm in saying that.

there's value in having no check leagues at certain ages for both boys and girls. most house and beer leagues ( the young and the old) are no check or gentlemen's agreement.

but what is the argument for having the very best players in the world not be able to check ? Do we insist on no lifters for women's hockey as well ?

If they dont want it, then that's on them. but there is a serious concern that women's hockey might disappear as an olympic sport
altogether because of the lack of global parity. so now in addition to telling young women that there is no viable professional leage for them, we also tell them there no longer any venue for you to represent your country. You do that and women's hockey dies. I think that introducing checking could very well decrease this disparity short term and actually give these other nations the time to develop the other skills. I think the writing is on the wall for the status quo and its not looking good.

 

[CorwiN]

Well, I can tell you that from serving on a board at both the local and district level, that if checking were introduced to girls hockey, you would see participation drop big time. You see many girls play with the boys up until they hit checking age, then head over to the girls side for the simple fact that they don't want checking. If they did, they would continue playing with the boys...and a few do. But 99 out of 100 do not.

Girls and boys are different. There's no harm in saying that.

While all of that is true, you have to consider various societal pressures, as well as just inherent differences that may/may not exist in the male/female mindset. Maybe that's also about the same age that those girls might start considering it a bit weird to be playing the boys team.

Who knows? Maybe just the fact that it's been done that way for so long might have an impact.

I just think it needs to be pointed out, considering that this only gets attention once every four years during the Olympics, that full-contact hockey would still be pretty far down the list of potentially dangerous activities in the winter Olympics. And the obvious, far more real dangers inherent to activities like snowboarding, skiing, luge, etc. never seem to stop women from participating, nor do they have internet lobbyists arguing strongly against it.

So, basically, you asked the question: Why don't I hear women complaining about not having checking? Well, I'd ask: Why do we so often hear men respond strongly against the idea of women having checking in hockey?

 

[MuckOG]

My sister said she stopped paying hockey after switching to girls hockey when she was 15 because it wasn't "aggressive or fun enough".

Why didn't she just continue playing with the boys then? There's no rule that says girls have to switch over at 15...at least no rule in Minnesota that says as such.

 

[Golden_Jet]

They have a little checking, I would compare it to mens league for body contact.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Well, I can tell you that from serving on a board at both the local and district level, that if checking were introduced to girls hockey, you would see participation drop big time. You see many girls play with the boys up until they hit checking age, then head over to the girls side for the simple fact that they don't want checking. If they did, they would continue playing with the boys...and a few do. But 99 out of 100 do not.

Girls and boys are different. There's no harm in saying that.

Or they don't want checking in a league where they are at a severe disadvantage due to the shear Physiology of their gender. Possibly they would be open to it if it was a level physical playing field.

 

[En7ropy]

Just from my experience, which included talking to the parents of these girls. Obviously it's not scientific.

I'm not saying that checking SHOULDN'T be introduced, just that I've never seen any support for doing so among the players and parents.

Keep in mind that many girls and parents are just realists and know full well that there are just no alternatives like in boys hockey.

 

[MuckOG]

While all of that is true, you have to consider various societal pressures, as well as just inherent differences that may/may not exist in the male/female mindset. Maybe that's also about the same age that those girls might start considering it a bit weird to be playing the boys team.

Who knows? Maybe just the fact that it's been done that way for so long might have an impact.

I just think it needs to be pointed out, considering that this only gets attention once every four years during the Olympics, that full-contact hockey would still be pretty far down the list of potentially dangerous activities in the winter Olympics. And the obvious, far more real dangers inherent to activities like snowboarding, skiing, luge, etc. never seem to stop women from participating, nor do they have internet lobbyists arguing strongly against it.

So, basically, you asked the question: Why don't I hear women complaining about not having checking? Well, I'd ask: Why do we so often hear men respond strongly against the idea of women having checking in hockey?

...and one more: "Why are we hearing so many men say that women and girls don't know what's good for them?"

I'm not against the idea of checking in girls/women's hockey if that's the direction they wanted to go. But I'm certainly wouldn't want to impose it on them if that's not what they wanted.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

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.

Implies that checking is not a skill. And also disregards the benefit of checking in separating player from puck --> creates turnovers.

It should be in the women's game (unless the majority truly does not want it).

 

[Kyndig]

Most teams don't have funding for weight training even, you have a lot more size discrepancies.

Meaning there is a lot more "St-Louis" sized players than in the NHL.

Chara, say hell to St-Louis...
one of many other examples in the NHL alone, hockey is played by players of all statures.

There is only a handful of tiny players in the NHL. Why? They're at a huge disadvantage, the ones that do succeed are the shiftiest players in the NHL, they have to be or they will get crushed.

Ok now introduce checking at the top level of womens hockey. You now have hundreds of women who don't know how to absorb hits or throw hits safely. On top of all those tiny players who wouldn't be shifty enough to get out of the way= less players in womens hockey and going backwards towards growing the sport.

 

[MuckOG]

Implies that checking is not a skill. And also disregards the benefit of checking in separating player from puck --> creates turnovers.

It should be in the women's game (unless the majority truly does not want it).

To say that checking is not allowed is not the same as no body contact. If you watch, they will play the body to separate the player from the puck. What's not allowed are the open ice crushing hits and running someone hard into the boards.

 

[LiveeviL]

Comparing hockey checking to MMA is stupid. They have weight divisions in MMA.

Most teams don't have funding for weight training even, you have a lot more size discrepancies. Imagine the average male throwing a check on a tiny Japanese woman because thats how big Hilary Knight is.

You want to grow the sport one of the best ways is to leave checking out of it, so women of all sizes have a chance.

Comparing Martial arts with hockey in general might result in... a host of differences. But the point is that if women can take a powerful jodan mawashi geri or a straight blow to the chin then they for sure can take a hit with hockey gear on. It isn't like they will face professional men's teams just because of hitting being included in the game.

Popularity of women's hockey should probably be higher if it resembled actual hockey a bit more.

 

[Lost Horizons]

Chara, say hell to St-Louis...
one of many other examples in the NHL alone, hockey is played by players of all statures.

Tyler Meyers and Gerbe:

 

[Jacob]

I don't see the women begging for checking to be part of the game..If they don't want it, why force it on them?

Because checking is a part of hockey.

 

[MuckOG]

Because checking is a part of hockey.

Not for women and girls it's not.

 

[CorwiN]

...and one more: "Why are we hearing so many men say that women and girls don't know what's good for them?"

I'm not against the idea of checking in girls/women's hockey if that's the direction they wanted to go. But I'm certainly wouldn't want to impose it on them if that's not what they wanted.

Well, I'm not arguing that women absolutely should have checking. So you might think that's a really smooth rebuttal, but it really isn't.

I'm arguing that it's clear that women's hockey was originally slanted toward not having checking due to a misogynistic decision made early on in the history of the sport. There's a quote in the article linked earlier from some IIHF vice-president saying that the first women's hockey tournament banned checking so as not to have the bad optic of a woman being stretchered off the ice. He then goes on to spout some bull about how it's a skill game, yadda yadda yadda.

The no-checking rule is tainted from the start, and it should be questioned at every turn.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Hockey is designed to be a contact sport, regardless of sex. Those women who state there's more skill involved with no contact are simply playing the politically correct card. There's absolutely no legit reason to keep it out of the game.