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.

The First Time

April 3, 2018

I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday the first time I had to determine a student was not eligible under rules of the Michigan High School Athletic Association.

At that singular moment, it did not matter that I had been able to advise a dozen previous callers that the students they were inquiring about were eligible under the rules. All I could see in my mind’s eye was this one student who would not be able to participate as a full-fledged member of a team in a sport he enjoyed.

I assumed, as I have in almost every case since, that this was a “good kid,” and one who needed sports more than sports needed him.

But the facts made him ineligible and there were no compelling reasons to look beyond the facts. I knew it would be hard on the student to miss a season, but I also knew this was not in any sense an “undue hardship.” I could see that if the rule was not enforced in this case, I would be undermining its enforcement in other cases, and effectively changing the rule.

And I recognized that I did not have the authority to change a rule which the MHSAA Representative Council and each member school’s board of education had adopted to bring consistency and control to competitive athletics.

Many years have passed, and I’ve had to consider the eligibility of countless students to represent their schools on athletic teams. But I still see each situation as an individual student, balancing his or her individual needs and desires against the need to protect the integrity of the rules and the desire to promote competitive equity within the program.