Boarding and Charging - Historic Perspective.

[Canadiens1958]

The concussion debate has touched upon the lack of boarding and charging penalties called.

Previously charging was called if a player took more than three strides before initiating contact or starting to glide.

Boarding was hitting a player into the boards OR hitting a player whose options to avoid a check were limited because he was against the boards.

In all instances the force of the check had to be parallel to the ice not upwards.

Let's focus on how these penalties evolved over the last 100+ years and when/why the boarding or charging penalties were gradually de-emphasized.

Click to read more...

 

[golfortennis]

Well I think the last 10-15 years anyway can be explained by the "finishing your check" mentality that coaches have managed to get into the lexicon. Not only is it a euphemism for the legalized interference that it really is, I think your topic is one of the fallouts as well.

To wit, 20 years ago, a guy along the boards who had the puck would see a guy coming towards him, and when he passed the puck, the guy would peel off and follow the play. Today, because he needs to "finish his check", the forechecker is drilling him. Since the mentality has taken hold that a player needs to finish his check, the intereference that it really is is not called. Part of the reason boarding and charging aren't called is part of the same phenomena: the refs are thinking "well he needs to be able to finish his check...."

"Finishing your check" has gotten players skating much faster after the puck, because now instead of needing to follow the play, they are simply drilling the guy whether he still has the puck or not. Bodychecking is intended to separate the man from the puck, yet at most half the hits are made when the guy actually has the puck. Since you're drilling everyone, you're quite likely to charge often, and boarding will occur a certain number of times.

Then it boils down to the old game of daring the refs to call all the penalties knowing that is they do they will be ripped for organizing a parade to the penalty box.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Finishing Your Check

Well I think the last 10-15 years anyway can be explained by the "finishing your check" mentality that coaches have managed to get into the lexicon. Not only is it a euphemism for the legalized interference that it really is, I think your topic is one of the fallouts as well.

To wit, 20 years ago, a guy along the boards who had the puck would see a guy coming towards him, and when he passed the puck, the guy would peel off and follow the play. Today, because he needs to "finish his check", the forechecker is drilling him. Since the mentality has taken hold that a player needs to finish his check, the intereference that it really is is not called. Part of the reason boarding and charging aren't called is part of the same phenomena: the refs are thinking "well he needs to be able to finish his check...."

"Finishing your check" has gotten players skating much faster after the puck, because now instead of needing to follow the play, they are simply drilling the guy whether he still has the puck or not. Bodychecking is intended to separate the man from the puck, yet at most half the hits are made when the guy actually has the puck. Since you're drilling everyone, you're quite likely to charge often, and boarding will occur a certain number of times.

Then it boils down to the old game of daring the refs to call all the penalties knowing that is they do they will be ripped for organizing a parade to the penalty box.

Excellent point, good analysis. However you still have a very basic situation where to "Finish your check" the checking player takes himself out of the play.

Beyond the time frame you specified if a forward chased behind the opposing net with the intent of making a hit the cost very often was an odd man rush the other way. The opposition would take advantage of the open ice that was created. Today this rarely happens. The Neil hit on Hedman being an example. Neil was way out of position with little risk of being caught.

The they won't call everything perception has existed for ages, taking various forms but it still comes down to taking advantage of the calls that are made or the opportunities presented.

 

[golfortennis]

Excellent point, good analysis. However you still have a very basic situation where to "Finish your check" the checking player takes himself out of the play.

Beyond the time frame you specified if a forward chased behind the opposing net with the intent of making a hit the cost very often was an odd man rush the other way. The opposition would take advantage of the open ice that was created. Today this rarely happens. The Neil hit on Hedman being an example. Neil was way out of position with little risk of being caught.

The they won't call everything perception has existed for ages, taking various forms but it still comes down to taking advantage of the calls that are made or the opportunities presented.

I think a tactical decision was made that so long as the guy who had the puck was taken out of the play, it was a good tradeoff, since they likely still have the puck, but one less option available to do something with it.

I think I disagree a little bit with your last statement, though. I that were really true, why didn't obstruction take hold long before it did? I think it is generally agreed that obstruction was a tactic that less talented teams used to try to slow down the more talented teams. There is also a prevailing school of thought that the 70s, and particularly the 80s, scoring levels had a lot to do with talent discrepancies due to the expansion and WHA merger, yet you never saw obstruction in those days aywhere near to the degree you saw it in the last 7-8 years leading up to the lockout.

So why didn't coaches of less talented teams back then take advantage of the fact the refs weren't going to call everything, like you say, and close the gap?

I disagree about the "taking advanatge of the calls that are made" for the simple fact that about 15 years ago there was a concerted effort to play within the rules while trying to gain an edge here or there, to a complete disregad for the rule book and daring the refs to keep a team on a permanent 2 men down scenario(which is what a number of teams' play would have resulted in had the rule book been enforced.) Teams going out with the mindset that they will be committing penalties almost the entire night is a sea change from years past.

Also, don't forget the intimidation factor. Years ago, a team that was intimidating was so due to the fighters they had on their team. With fighting being sanitized out of many levels, intimidation turned to hits, with or without the puck, numbers visible or not(hence, "finishing your check"). A guy skating around like a missile is now the way to send a message to the other team, not the fists. And like obstruction, if the players are taught to do it at every single opportunity, the fact the refs will never call every single one can only result in a net positive tradeoff.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clarifications

I think a tactical decision was made that so long as the guy who had the puck was taken out of the play, it was a good tradeoff, since they likely still have the puck, but one less option available to do something with it.

I think I disagree a little bit with your last statement, though. I that were really true, why didn't obstruction take hold long before it did? I think it is generally agreed that obstruction was a tactic that less talented teams used to try to slow down the more talented teams. There is also a prevailing school of thought that the 70s, and particularly the 80s, scoring levels had a lot to do with talent discrepancies due to the expansion and WHA merger, yet you never saw obstruction in those days aywhere near to the degree you saw it in the last 7-8 years leading up to the lockout.

So why didn't coaches of less talented teams back then take advantage of the fact the refs weren't going to call everything, like you say, and close the gap?

I disagree about the "taking advanatge of the calls that are made" for the simple fact that about 15 years ago there was a concerted effort to play within the rules while trying to gain an edge here or there, to a complete disregad for the rule book and daring the refs to keep a team on a permanent 2 men down scenario(which is what a number of teams' play would have resulted in had the rule book been enforced.) Teams going out with the mindset that they will be committing penalties almost the entire night is a sea change from years past.

Also, don't forget the intimidation factor. Years ago, a team that was intimidating was so due to the fighters they had on their team. With fighting being sanitized out of many levels, intimidation turned to hits, with or without the puck, numbers visible or not(hence, "finishing your check"). A guy skating around like a missile is now the way to send a message to the other team, not the fists. And like obstruction, if the players are taught to do it at every single opportunity, the fact the refs will never call every single one can only result in a net positive tradeoff.

Until the start of the 1956-57 season the complete two minute minor had to be served regardless of the number of PP goals scored. As a result penalties were not called unless blatant, hence my comment.

Bolded. You are correct - a major change. Previously the idea of a hit was to get possession of the puck. Otherwise teams were not willing to give up the positional adavantage.

1970's / post WHA merger, coincidental penalties had to be served with the teams playing 3 on 3 or 4 on 4. Net advantage to the talented until the rules were changed to favour the weaker teams by making 5 on 5 hockey the norm during coincidental penalties.

Factor in the instigator if a player goes after the "missile" player and there is a net advantage to the tactic.

 

[golfortennis]

Until the start of the 1956-57 season the complete two minute minor had to be served regardless of the number of PP goals scored. As a result penalties were not called unless blatant, hence my comment.

Bolded. You are correct - a major change. Previously the idea of a hit was to get possession of the puck. Otherwise teams were not willing to give up the positional adavantage.

1970's / post WHA merger, coincidental penalties had to be served with the teams playing 3 on 3 or 4 on 4. Net advantage to the talented until the rules were changed to favour the weaker teams by making 5 on 5 hockey the norm during coincidental penalties.

Factor in the instigator if a player goes after the "missile" player and there is a net advantage to the tactic.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. I hadn't even considered that part of it. That is a great point.

Your comment makes more sense now, based on the full 2 minutes served. My frame of reference really only goes back 25 or so years, so anyone who can comment from prior to that will have more to say on that prior era than I.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. I hadn't even considered that part of it. That is a great point.

Your comment makes more sense now, based on the full 2 minutes served. My frame of reference really only goes back 25 or so years, so anyone who can comment from prior to that will have more to say on that prior era than I.

I started playing minor hockey in the sixties and it seemed to me "finishing your check" was not a new term at the time.

We all had helmets, though little face protection, and generally the pros had nothing on their heads at all. There was a widespread sense to "keep your stick down", charging was illegal, and boarding always called unless angling or pinning. Hitting someone perpendicular to and into the boards was generally called, no matter the result.

Helmets came to the pros, the helmets improved, resulting in much better protection for the way the game was played. This resulted in less calls, similar to the way an inadvertent high stick that happens to lightly clip a player on the shield is ignored in youth hockey today; it doesn't look dangerous and for the most part it isn't ...so play on.

So with players heads better protected more was allowed, as more of the types of plays that were previously obviously dangerous, seemed less so.

The problem is that as good as helmets are, they do a really great job of protecting the skull but only a fairly good job of protecting the brain. So a buffer of sorts is gone as far as concussions go as to the types of plays that are allowed, even though the head is better protected.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent Points

I started playing minor hockey in the sixties and it seemed to me "finishing your check" was not a new term at the time.

We all had helmets, though little face protection, and generally the pros had nothing on their heads at all. There was a widespread sense to "keep your stick down", charging was illegal, and boarding always called unless angling or pinning. Hitting someone perpendicular to and into the boards was generally called, no matter the result.

Helmets came to the pros, the helmets improved, resulting in much better protection for the way the game was played. This resulted in less calls, similar to the way an inadvertent high stick that happens to lightly clip a player on the shield is ignored in youth hockey today; it doesn't look dangerous and for the most part it isn't ...so play on.

So with players heads better protected more was allowed, as more of the types of plays that were previously obviously dangerous, seemed less so.

The problem is that as good as helmets are, they do a really great job of protecting the skull but only a fairly good job of protecting the brain. So a buffer of sorts is gone as far as concussions go as to the types of plays that are allowed, even though the head is better protected.

Excellent points. Started playing minor hockey in the mid fifties. Helmets became part of the norm in the early sixties at roughly the same time as masks became mandatory for goalies at the youth level.

Your point about angling deserves additional comment. A lost art in modern hockey where every play has to be made using the shortest distance.

Angling includes many defensive and offensive facets. Defensively it touches the very basic from letting the opponent take themselves out of the play by establishing position, to varying forechecking angles.Also the skill of getting to the puck along the boards in a fashion that allows the player to have the best view of the ice surface and all playmaking options as opposed to simply looking into the stands.

Pinning is also a lost art. Done properly it was/is an effective way for a forward to get inside position and a few steps when making the transition from defense to offense.

One of the facets of the game that started disappearing in the sixties was freezing the puck along the boards to get a whistle. The move to shorter shifts and the desire to keep the flow constant has virtually eliminated this tactic.

The high sticks increased as a result of the popularity of the slapshot - drawback and follow thru, both going above shoulder level. For a while some of the youth leagues - house league, today's equivalent of the single letters, around Montreal would penalize if the stick went above shoulder level when a kid slapped the puck.

Helmets and concussions. Sadly the medical technology to measure concussions is very recent. As more is learned changes will result.
Until this happens the mindset that blows to the head are acceptable because players wear helmets will continue.