Why the double minor for blood drawn? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Why the double minor for blood drawn?

I'd say the extra 2-minutes should be tacked on for any penalty where there is blood - roughing, tripping, hooking, slashing, delay of game...
 
I don't agree with that call anyway. Klein was sliding across the ice when he got hit by Sill (Sill was going for a deflection). I thought a high stick wouldn't be called against someone if the person they are hitting with the stick is on the ice/low.
 
During the 1980's and 1990's a high stick that drew blood was a 5 minute major penalty and a Game Misconduct. At some point during the 2000's this penalty must have been changed and blood suddenly didn't matter as much, everything was about checks to the head and concussions and hits based on that were the main major penalty calls.
 
Why not 2:45 if it's a lip? 3:15 if it's a nose? 4:00 if it's around the eye?

we have minors (2:00) and majors (5:00) we don't need to invent any more penalty time lengths. Minor, double minor, major, that's all the refs get to work with.
 
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
 
Slick Eller said:
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just an incentive to bleed, really.
 
Stanley Foobrick said:
Why not 2:45 if it's a lip? 3:15 if it's a nose? 4:00 if it's around the eye?

we have minors (2:00) and majors (5:00) we don't need to invent any more penalty time lengths. Minor, double minor, major, that's all the refs get to work with.
Click to expand...

This. Adding all different kinds of requisites for different amounts of time for a penalty just complicates things and leaves more room for error and potential controversy on the ref's part.
 
Slick Eller said:
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
Click to expand...

what's frustrate me the most is when a player tries to find blood at all cost after a high stick penality . "Ref you just gave him two minutes ? give me a moment i'll find you blood , so you could give him 5 ":shakehead
 
Yeah, I've always hated this too. It's even worse in the playoffs, too. The refs can let everything go all game, then someone cuts someone else with a stick with 5 minutes to go and it's an automatic double-minor.
 
Mike Martin said:
During the 1980's and 1990's a high stick that drew blood was a 5 minute major penalty and a Game Misconduct. At some point during the 2000's this penalty must have been changed and blood suddenly didn't matter as much, everything was about checks to the head and concussions and hits based on that were the main major penalty calls.
Click to expand...

There were accusations of players either gouging themselves to create a cut or of keeping a blood capsule around.

Ray Bourque was one who had the capsule accusation made against him around 1992, and he said something about how he'd always played hockey and didn't realize that the playoffs became pro wrestling.
 
Mayor Bee said:
There were accusations of players either gouging themselves to create a cut or of keeping a blood capsule around.

Ray Bourque was one who had the capsule accusation made against him around 1992, and he said something about how he'd always played hockey and didn't realize that the playoffs became pro wrestling.
Click to expand...

Players biting their own lips to draw blood was another common accusation.
 
Slick Eller said:
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
Click to expand...

Not only that but, you can have a broken bone, and not bleed. Conversely you can get a little superficial nick in the wrong place, and it'll bleed like a stuck pig.
 
It's one of the most arbitrary "rules" in all of sports. "Rules" in quotations because it's not actually in the rule book.

It's a joke. The severity of the injury should have NO bearing on the penalty. Some of the most dangerous plays you'll ever see have (thankfully and luckily) not resulted in injuries. Doesn't make those plays any better, or warrant a smaller penalty.
 
Slick Eller said:
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
Click to expand...

Its not a stupid rule, because its not a rule in the first place.
There is no rule that bleeding is what causes a double minor.

Rule 60 - High-sticking

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.

60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee.
Click to expand...

So again, the call is not for causing another player to bleed... Its for the ref being convinced that the contact caused injury.

HOWEVER, depending on your definition of injury, its pretty damn obvious there is an injury to your skin when it starts leaking.
It's just the most obvious and immediately provable form of "causing injury", because unless they cause a bruise or stop the game for medical evaluation (or a player is left miss-shapen)... Pretty hard to prove injury with out a cut.
I know I have seen bloodless double majors, but can't think of what the case was... Its how I became aware of the distinction in the first place though.
 
It seems like its always been the case, you draw blood its an automatic 4, possibly a 5 min major. I've never seen a 2 min minor called that's drawn blood.
 
Slick Eller said:
Its a stupid rule.

The blood thing... Some people have thicker skin than other and some peole (like me) can bleed from a so soft contact.

Peform the same motion, same strenght over and over on all players.. some will cut, others won't.

Stupid.
Click to expand...

It used to be worse though---wasn't there a 1-game suspension at one time linked to this?
 
kingsfan28 said:
It seems like its always been the case, you draw blood its an automatic 4, possibly a 5 min major. I've never seen a 2 min minor called that's drawn blood.
Click to expand...

Thats because its really really hard to bleed with no injury.
 
aemoreira1981 said:
It used to be worse though---wasn't there a 1-game suspension at one time linked to this?
Click to expand...

You are correct. It used to be that when a player received his second high sticking major of the season there was an automatic one game suspension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom