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

[Osprey]

Not having checking in women's hockey isn't sexism. Insisting, as a man, that women should play hockey like men do, against their will, is. Sexism isn't simply not treating women the same as men. It's treating them differently than they want to be treated. If they don't want checking in their sport, men shouldn't force it on them because they think that know better and want to make decisions for them.

There's plenty of room for different styles of hockey. North American men's hockey is not the one and only pure form of hockey that all hockey has to strive to emulate. To think so is as much of a prejudice as sexism is.

 

[sandysan]

Ummm... Isn't part of it because of, well... Boobs?

It's a sensitive body part that would need to be protected differently than mens chests if women were allowed to check. While maybe not exactly a perfect comparison, guys wear a cup for a reason. As others have said, there is a bone density difference on average between men and women that would need to be factored in.

Flame away and call me a chauvinistic sexist for noting biological differences in men and women.

the summer olympics has women's judo and karate and as of 2012 boxing. do these women not have the same bone density issues because they compete in the summer ?

no one is advocating unisex games, but there were many things that women were prevented from doing " for their own good" that ending up as being completely specious ( marathons, ski jumping, mma etc).

If countries other than the us and canada come to the realization that they have neither the time nor the resources to wait for their teams to be competitive with the other two, international women's hockey goes poof.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Not having checking in women's hockey isn't sexism. Insisting, as a man, that women should play hockey like men do, against their will, is. Sexism isn't simply not treating women the same as men. It's treating them differently than they want to be treated. If they don't want checking in their sport, men shouldn't force it on them because they think that know better and want to make decisions for them.

There's plenty of room for different styles of hockey. North American men's hockey is not the one and only pure form of hockey that all hockey has to strive to emulate. To think so is as much of a prejudice as sexism is.

Well said.

 

[sandysan]

Not having checking in women's hockey isn't sexism. Insisting, as a man, that women should play hockey like men do, against their will, is. Sexism isn't simply not treating women the same as men. It's treating them differently than they want to be treated. If they don't want checking in their sport, men shouldn't force it on them because they think that know better and want to make decisions for them.

There's plenty of room for different styles of hockey. North American men's hockey is not the one and only pure form of hockey that all hockey has to strive to emulate. To think so is as much of a prejudice as sexism is.

no one is forcing anything on anyone, but if the status quo is maintained and the olympics drops women's hockey, is that a win ? for whom ?

Expecting other teams to more rationally make up the physicality gap over the talent gap seems like a reasonable expectation. Right now, on talent pools canada and the us dwarf the rest of the planet.
Im not advocating hitting to make the game more " man-like" I do it because I think its one way to possibly reduce the talent discrepancy enough to hopefully ensure that womens hockey does not go the way of baseball and almost wrestling.

the problem with womens hockey is not that it is not " pure" hockey or that its not man-like, its that international competitions are, and are likely to remain to be, bringing lambs to slaughter to decide who gets a medal besides the us and canada. I think the clock on the sustainability of such tournaments is already ticking.

 

[Ducksgo*]

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

That's a pretty good point. I've seen some women kick some men's ass at bars. So I agree with that point

 

[capebretoncanadien]

Look at the size differences between Canada/U.S. and the rest of the world.

Institute full on checking and a game between Canada and say Japan would result in a slew of players getting injured.

The games I've watched between Canada and the States seem to me like there's a lot of physical contact that is let go by the refs.

 

[kasps]

That's a pretty good point. I've seen some women kick some men's ass at bars. So I agree with that point

they have weight classes and a sloppy check will break somebodys neck .

 

[j cade]

hello, yes I registered just for this.

I am a female person. I have played on both male and female teams (the former with checking) in middle and high school.

I vastly preferred hockey with checking. It helped that there was y'know more than one team in a fifty mile radius too,

Yes there was one female team anywhere near me. with probably 25 players ranging from age 12-50. Of the few players we had about 5 could barely skate at all. I can understand why there was no checking.

At the same time I was also playing in the club league, which has 4-6 teams depending on age group and year. I played with checking and I loved it. Now, I stopped growing at 5'3 so some of that whole physical disparity came into play, but, honestly, checking really wasn't the problem. One game in particular I remember I got hit by the biggest kid in the league (He was about 6 inches taller than anyone else and a foot taller than me) I saw him coming, still got quite flattened, and was on the ice for a second before I got back up and kept playing because somehow my magic ladybones did not disintegrate on contact. My problems were far more the fact that I was 5'3 with stubby legs and not particularly athletic, so I was not fast.

So with that said, why did I eventually stop playing Hockey with the boys team? Well, they decided to switch setups so that the hockey teams were through the public school, there was now one team I could be on. I went to the first practice, we did semi-tryouts and were then split into two groups. I actually did pretty, well not the best but firmly in the mid range. I got put with the group that had people who couldn't skate. Meanwhile, there were people I had definitely done better than in the other group. I actually went up and asked the assistant coach why I was in the group I was in, and he told me that I definitely could have been in the other group, but the coach wanted me to help the boys who couldn't skate... So yeah, I didn't join the team.

TL;DR Actual lady here, with boobs and everything, I think it's ******** that there's no checking in women's hockey

and seriously I live in Upstate New York, how are there not more women's rec league hockey teams, I just made myself really depressed

 

[Oh_so_saad]

i think its a concern for concussions. i dont see why the females dont petition for it. there the ones playing and there opinion should be heard

 

[Petey21]

I've always been curious about this too. And as stated already, it's women vs women, not women vs men, and they do allow other contact sports. So it just doesn't make sense.

And on a related note, why are cages mandatory for women? Seeing as checking and physical contact generally isn't allowed, that rule makes no sense either. Sure, stick incidents can still happen, but then why aren't cages mandatory for men too?

 

[LiveeviL]

Not having checking in women's hockey isn't sexism. Insisting, as a man, that women should play hockey like men do, against their will, is. Sexism isn't simply not treating women the same as men. It's treating them differently than they want to be treated. If they don't want checking in their sport, men shouldn't force it on them because they think that know better and want to make decisions for them.

There's plenty of room for different styles of hockey. North American men's hockey is not the one and only pure form of hockey that all hockey has to strive to emulate. To think so is as much of a prejudice as sexism is.

Still you are stereotyping women as if they had one opinion. The opinion you are referring to is from women in a non-checking sport. With rule chances allowing checking you will get another group of active athletes attracted by the format of the sport. Some will drop out or not engage in hockey at all with the change. But there will be women willing to play hockey and perhaps even more people willing to pay to watch them play.

 

[MuckOG]

Still you are stereotyping women as if they had one opinion. The opinion you are referring to is from women in a non-checking sport. With rule chances allowing checking you will get another group of active athletes attracted by the format of the sport. Some will drop out or not engage in hockey at all with the change.

I ask again, where is the outcry among women demanding checking be implemented? I'm not against checking in women's hockey, if that's what the women want.

 

[j cade]

I've always been curious about this too. And as stated already, it's women vs women, not women vs men, and they do allow other contact sports. So it just doesn't make sense.

And on a related note, why are cages mandatory for women? Seeing as checking and physical contact generally isn't allowed, that rule makes no sense either. Sure, stick incidents can still happen, but then why aren't cages mandatory for men too?

Because men can have facial scars and still be considered attractive. (To an extent, obviously Börje Salming took it a bit far)

 

[Cloned]

If you want Canada and the US to absolutely demolish (and I use that word intentionally) other teams even more than they do now, sure, implement body checking. It'd be like 10+ to 0 every game.

 

[j cade]

If you want Canada and the US to absolutely demolish (and I use that word intentionally) other teams even more than they do now, sure, implement body checking. It'd be like 10+ to 0 every game.

Do we have any solid evidence for this? Don't get me wrong, it's by far the best argument against checking I've seen. I get the argument that the more trained, and therefore more likely to be more muscular Canadians and US could physically dominate their opponents. On the other hand its a bigger target to knock someone over when defending than try to poke-check, especially since the games have a much slower foot speed in comparison to hand speed vs men. I mean that's pretty much how the Swiss men's team competes, trap smother and hit. Is it that unreasonable to think one of the other women's team could do the same?

 

[Cloned]

Do we have any solid evidence for this? Don't get me wrong, it's by far the best argument against checking I've seen, but, while

I don't think they want to tempt fate by trying it and seeing the evidence first-hand. US and Canada have rosters that are on balance faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. Which means body checking would heavily favour them.

US beat Sweden 6-1 yesterday and outshot them 70-9. Put body checking in and I'm not sure the Swedes get 5 shots on goal and it'd probably be like 100-4 with US scoring 12+ goals.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Do we have any solid evidence for this? Don't get me wrong, it's by far the best argument against checking I've seen, but, while

Agreed, but there's also an argument that can be made in the same way people talk about hitting in minor boys hockey. If girls are taught to hit properly from a younger age there's a likelihood injuries wouldn't be a huge issue. I played female rugby through highschool which was pretty much full contact, the girls who got hurt were usually the ones who weren't able to properly brace or prepare for it.

Saying that Canadian and American women would demolish other players is kind of weird, IMO. Plenty European women hockey players are pretty built physically, it's a matter of learning how to play contact hockey properly.

 

[Cloned]

Do we have any solid evidence for this? Don't get me wrong, it's by far the best argument against checking I've seen. I get the argument that the more trained, and therefore more likely to be more muscular Canadians and US could physically dominate their opponents. On the other hand its a bigger target to knock someone over when defending than try to poke-check, especially since the games have a much slower foot speed in comparison to hand speed vs men. I mean that's pretty much how the Swiss men's team competes, trap smother and hit. Is it that unreasonable to think one of the other women's team could do the same?

The gap between players in the men's game isn't as big between the powers and the other nations. Generally speaking most players are probably in the same general size range. With women's hockey the disparity is a lot wider and thus Canada and the US would have a distinct advantage just based on size and strength alone. Never mind the fact that they are generally faster and have a better feel for the game which would allow them to be in position to hit - and hit harder - than the other teams.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

the heck are we talking about. women are pretty tough. Didnt USA and Canada women squad got into a brawl?

Or did I read the news wrong

 

[DearDiary]

the heck are we talking about. women are pretty tough. Didnt USA and Canada women squad got into a brawl?

Or did I read the news wrong

Getting into a brawl means they're tough?

^Proof that fighting doesn't = tough

 

[leafstilldeath*]

Getting into a brawl means they're tough?

^Proof that fighting doesn't = tough

Probably tougher than Semin?

I think there was a line brawl or something. Never saw it. Just read the news unless of course I read it wrong.

 

[BiggestLeafsFanEVER*]

another question. why do the women all have to wear cages? seems sexist to me.

 

[LiveeviL]

I ask again, where is the outcry among women demanding checking be implemented? I'm not against checking in women's hockey, if that's what the women want.

From my argument you could deduct that the current stock of women hockey players are habituated in a social surrounding where checking is abolished. What does that make? This surrounding is freely chosen, they play hockey because the sport fits them for some reason (non-checking might be a deciding factor for some of them). It is given that you get a certain answer if you ask people with certain preferences. It isn't like one can compare with suffragettes demanding the right to vote as they could not step out of that surrounding as you can do in a sport.

The question is if women hockey will be improved by checking and what is improvement? Mileage will certainly vary here, but for me the norm of hockey includes checking. Female hockey is hockey without checking to me. It will never lose that suffix as long as the rule remain, it is an incomplete sport. I would also speculate that the popularity of the sport would increase with checking. I base that on the assumption that the surge (well) of new fans would be similar to me in opinion (I find myself as ordinary, not extraordinary) and be fans of hockey as we follow it world-wide outside of the enclave of women hockey. Any new fans of women hockey outside of hockey fans in general is perhaps to much to wish for.

I don't think they want to tempt fate by trying it and seeing the evidence first-hand. US and Canada have rosters that are on balance faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. Which means body checking would heavily favour them.

US beat Sweden 6-1 yesterday and outshot them 70-9. Put body checking in and I'm not sure the Swedes get 5 shots on goal and it'd probably be like 100-4 with US scoring 12+ goals.

Sure, for these squads here and now. How does that matter for the sport in the long run? I would rather see women hockey grow in popularity and I do think checking is one factor (see my rant above) which would increase popularity.

With your argument we have the US and Canadian teams which are better on balance faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. Interesting and certainly true for Sochi. Can we believe that we deal with constants here, that it cannot change? Or do we actually believe that say team Finland can be better, that they can improve, in these categories? If we believe in change, can we then see your argument as a relevant argument against checking?

 

[Cloned]

Sure, for these squads here and now. How does that matter for the sport in the long run? I would rather see women hockey grow in popularity and I do think checking is one factor (see my rant above) which would increase popularity.

With your argument we have the US and Canadian teams which are better on balance faster, stronger, bigger and more skilled. Interesting and certainly true for Sochi. Can we believe that we deal with constants here, that it cannot change? Or do we actually believe that say team Finland can be better, that they can improve, in these categories? If we believe in change, can we then see your argument as a relevant argument against checking?

It's taken 20+ years to get the women's game to where it is now. It might take another 15 to get true competitive balance in the women's game. Maybe we can talk about implementing body checking at that point. I'd be all for it. But now, and for the immediate future? It'd be a mistake imo. Make sure the other teams have a chance to get close to the Canadians and Americans in ability and depth first. Otherwise it'd be a massacre.

 

[Ducksgo*]

the heck are we talking about. women are pretty tough. Didnt USA and Canada women squad got into a brawl?

Or did I read the news wrong

Yupp two times. Both teams were going at it!!!



Definitely not talking to any of these chicks at the bar my god