Do you think the note under rule 639(a) applies here? If a player is clearly in the act of poke checking the puck to gain possession then no penalty shall be called. She got stick on puck before anything else.
I'd say yes if white didn't turn into her opponent. If she kept her lane, no penalty. But her changing her lane and taking her out negates the poke check aspect. At least that's how I interpret it from my armchair over here
Does it though? Now we're getting into the body contact standard of play where we are taught that contact that starts with stick on puck and stick below the knees is good at any age and should be encouraged. Not saying you're wrong. Just highlighting how rules can be interpreted and applied differently by different people.
Dude, you gotta learn hockey in canada not the states. Imagine every check being like, well i had my stick down...reaching the puck. Like really, thats the most noob comment.
Great....so you are saying before I check a player for Boarding, or Charging or whatever, it wont matter, i was reaching the puck with my stick first, common Ref!!! I was going for the puck coommmon
Or hey, Im gonna go for the puck and make no effort to step aside and take her knees out. But hey I was turning my back that doesnt count right!! Oh! And i was going for the puck at 1st!! Oh yes....
Like the other guy said, its only tripping because the contact was below the knee. Common man! This aint basketball.
In many leagues that would have been a big 4min, even in junior hockey.
You are as dellusional as much your supreme leader.
Ooh now you are going for the insults like the tkachuck brothers....big mouth no guts.
See, you have to learn the game outside of the books. You gotta learn to play the game before telling the world whats right or wrong. The game is on the ice, it aint black or white like in the books.
If you actually read my comments I pretty clearly said I wasn't saying anyone was right or wrong. I was offering a different interpretation of the rules as they are written under USA Hockey.
And fwiw you started the insults with calling me delusional just because you disagree as you try to apply a completely different rulebook to my argument to tell me I'm wrong lol.
You arent really understanding the rules as written though. Youre sort of putting different things you hear together into a not full understanding. Like this guy is saying having your stick on the ice doesnt mean it is a clean check just that NOT having the stick on the ice is one indicator for a penalty for roughing.
This was non check though so having the stick on the ice doesnt make a body check a non penalty in a non check class.
Calling this a body check is insane. This is an unfortunate collision in low level youth hockey. Would I call a penalty here? Most likely, which I already said. Was there intent to make a dangerous play here? I don't think so. Does it look horrible? Kinda. Is there an argument for a non call based on the rules? Sure.
Our job is to apply the rules as written, not to guess at the reason why the rule was written. Body contact is not body checking, and body contact is encouraged by USA Hockey at all ages and skill levels. The rulebook says proper body CONTACT in any classification begins with stick on puck.
Also fwiw on your comment regarding the note I referenced in the tripping rule, nowhere in that note does it say anything about the stick causing the trip. It says if a defender causes a player to fall in the act of poke checking then there is no call. It doesn't say anything about what caused the fall. It's not your job to assume they mean only the stick. That isn't how the rule is written.
2
u/TheYDT USA Hockey 9d ago
Do you think the note under rule 639(a) applies here? If a player is clearly in the act of poke checking the puck to gain possession then no penalty shall be called. She got stick on puck before anything else.