Logo

Ice Hockey Penalties

May 27, 2014

After each rules committee of the National Federation of State High School Associations meets, the list of changes is sent to all member state high school associations for advance examination before being finalized and publicized.

Recently, I took special notice of the work of the NFHS Ice Hockey Rules Committee. What caught my attention first was the brevity of its list of rules changes for 2014-15 – just three items. And then I was struck at the stated purpose of each of the three changes: risk minimization.

  • The penalty for a check, cross-check, elbow, charge or trip that causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards is no longer a Major or Minor – it’s a Major (five minutes).
  • If a check is flagrant or causes the opponent to crash head-first into the boards, a Major and Misconduct or Game Disqualification penalty must be assessed.
  • The penalty for a push, charge, cross-check or body-check from behind in open ice is no longer a Minor and Misconduct – it’s a Major.

Only three rule changes .. three tougher penalties.
Committee chair Tom Shafranski of Wisconsin commented after the meeting: “In each case, the rule has been strengthened for officials to assess a stronger penalty than in the past – a good strategy for further protection of high school hockey players ... There will likely be traditionalists who don’t agree with the increase in penalty time; however, boarding and checking from behind (even in open ice) are high school hockey’s most dangerous contact situations.”
MHSAA Assistant Director Cody Inglis serves on the NFHS Ice Hockey Rules Committee and supported these changes.

Show of Hands

July 12, 2017

Four dozen years ago, my boss, the executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, expressed to me his disappointment that one of the characteristics of NFHS national meetings was the much too frequent “show of hands.” That is, someone from one state would rise to ask for a show of hands on a topic: “How many states do this? ... How many states don’t? ... How many do that?”

My mentor’s point was that the time would be much better spent on a qualitative analysis of the topic, rather than a quantitative one ... a discussion of the merits of a particular policy or procedure, rather than a head count.

His message to me is recalled every time a proposal comes to the Michigan High School Athletic Association to change this or that policy and is accompanied by the meager rationale that it’s what 25 or 35 or 45 other states might do. That stat holds only mild interest for me.

Before we do anything here to be like anybody elsewhere, we need to measure the pros and cons in our place and time ... how it fits our culture or our climate, for example.

When we consider change in the start or end of seasons; or the number of interscholastic scrimmages or contests in a day, week or season; or the number of exceptions to the transfer rule or the length of ineligibility when no exception applies; or the number of classes or divisions for tournaments; or the existence or extent of seeding for a tournament; when we consider any of these things in Michigan, we need much better rationale than a show of hands.