Parent
WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 540
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by zharris
2) Re: Cammi Granato
by June Nejman
3) hockey is becoming sexist
by "Sue St.Louis"
4) Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by email@hidden
5) Body Checking
by email@hidden (DAVE BAKER)
6) Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
by email@hidden
7) Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by Chuck Collins
8) Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
by Anne Paulson
9) Checking vs. making a living
by email@hidden
10) Gretzky & Messier
by email@hidden
11) Re: Checking vs. making a living
by email@hidden
12) RE: mud wrestling vs. checking
by Mary Wood
13) Niagara University Joins the Ice Wars
by "Page, Don"
14) To check or not to check; That is the question.
by email@hidden
15) Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by julee
16) Re[2]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by Jan de Regt
17) Re[6]: mud wrestling vs. checking
by Jan de Regt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 09:16:00 -0700
From: zharris
To: email@hidden, email@hidden (subscribers to)
Subject: RE: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
Jan wrote:
>What I don't understand is why we should all jump on the band wagon to
>change the rules "just because that's the way men play the game!"
>That's not a well thought out action, that's an unthinking, knee-jerk
>REaction, and decisions made that way most often turn out to be poor
>ones. What would be gained by adding checking, what would be lost?
>There is a very good argument made that a lot of skill and finesse
>falls by the wayside in a checking game, and I think that would be a
>loss to women's hockey, not a gain.
I totally agree 100%!
I think what would be lost would be the beautiful non-check game that women
play, with a lot of finesse, skill, fluid plays, and open ice. I am not
talking about losing the great aggressiveness of the game... I am just
saying that checking would change the game to where it wouldn't be this
type of game anymore. Who says the men's style game with checking is a
better game?
I also think that the men's game is not necessarily the checking game but
the checking game played now by men is just a style of hockey. What I think
is that the checking game is more a Canadian style of hockey.... and the
non-checking game is more of a European style of hockey.... it doesn't
really have to do with gender. I just prefer the European style of
hockey..
don't get me wrong, I know the European men check, but they tend to be more
of finesse-type players.
On another note:
I can't tell you how many players that I see that have only played boys'
hockey, including boys' check hockey, and then try to transition over to
girls' non-check hockey. It is ugly and usually takes them a full year to
get the women's style. They are constantly looking over their shoulder for
the hit, they don't fully stride (it leaves them vulnerable in boys'
hockey), and they hesitate when they should be flying through. Like I said
before, it takes most of them an entire season to make the change over to
the women's non-check game. That is why when people ask I say, if a girl
is to play boys' hockey, I only recommend that they do so up until PeeWee,
otherwise they tend to develop survival skills... not hockey skills.
-Zoe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:39:55 -0400
From: June Nejman
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Cammi Granato
Message-ID:
At 09:44 PM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>BLACKTHORN said: >If you have ever
>played against a former professional player or been on the ice with one, you
>would appreciate the elite skill level even the worst player possesses.
> Women' s hockey is not at that level yet.<
>
>Please do not take this the wrong way, but how often do normal people with no
>connections to the NHL, IHL or AHL get to skate with a former or current
>professional player? If you have, more power to you, and can you let me know
>where I can go to skate with a pro?
>
>
You'd be surprised, but it does happen. Just before Training Camp was to
start for the Florida Panthers, about 3 years ago now, I was just taking up
hockey. I had the opportunity to play on a men's "C" league and one night
this new young guy shows up in the locker room. Well next thing I know I
am playing right wing to Eddie Jovanoski at center! We had all heard the
media hype but never expected him to show up at one of our games. Turns
out two of the guys on our team were also equipment guys for the Panthers
(no one knew that until that night) asked him to come and "fool around" -
he didn't know a soul in South Florida yet. It is still the highlight of my
meagre career. Yeah, it was a fluke but even at their practice arena, Gold
Coast, the Panthers organization have a wonderful attitude towards their
fans and make themselves accessible. It's just the kind of guys they are.
My husband and I also attended hockey clinics with the Hall of Famer Denis
Potvin at the Gold Coast Arena.
Finally, I have to reiterate that it is indeed awe inspiring to be on the
ice with an ex or current NHLer. There is no comparison to any college
player, etc. I have ever seen. They make skating and stick handling look
so effortless.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:05:29 PDT
From: "Sue St.Louis"
To: email@hidden
Subject: hockey is becoming sexist
Message-ID:
What the heck has happened to the game I love so dear. I mean the rules, of
course. Two games for pulling hair. When I played guys hockey pulling hair was
unheard of. If I was a ref I wouldn't call it pulling hair I would call it being
too chicken to rough someone up properly. I am not promoting fighting even
though I love to get into a scrap every now and then. Another example,(guy 1:
gets in a fight and get 3 games max. girl 2: gets into a fight and gets 5 games
min.) what, the heck are they thinking. At least the basic rules are still the
same.
Did anyone see the Womens World Championships in Kichener? I was gonna go to see
the gold medal game live but unfortunatly I didn't have a ride to the arena. I
watched it on the tv. and boy was I impressed. I mean way to go Womens Hockey.
Did you see the crowds that we(women) were bringing in. Way to go girls.
Sue St.Louis
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:23:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden, email@hidden
Subject: Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
Jan.
You make a good point, why should we change the rules just because that's the
way the men play the game. I agree. I just wonder why the original (?) rules
for women did not allow checking. Men played the game first, then women
played and they changed the rules, right? I could be wrong.
I don't think that checking takes that much out of the game or takes away
from the skills a player must possess. If you compare Gretzgy to Messier,
who's the better player? We all want to say Gretzgy because we love him, but
you know who makes more money? USA Today printed their salaries and Messier
makes about 6 million when Gretzgy only makes 5.5 million per year. Who has
more goals this year - and who has more penalty minutes? I think that's
Messier. I think that they are equal players as far as skill, they are just
different. Gretzgy is graceful and shows off his finesse whereas Messier is a
solid, aggressive, physical player.
If the team I play on started checking, I don't think I'd spend less time
practicing my shooting, stick-handling or skating skills. I'd probably just
scrimmage differently.
Anyway, maybe we can just not resolve the issue and that will be fine. It all
depends on what those higher up decide in the future. I can see the issue
going either way.
Jenn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:52:09 +0000
From: email@hidden (DAVE BAKER)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Body Checking
Message-ID:
> You make a good point, why should we change the rules just because that's the
> way the men play the game. I agree. I just wonder why the original (?) rules
> for women did not allow checking. Men played the game first, then women
> played and they changed the rules, right? I could be wrong.
Just for clarification, body checking was removed from the women's
game in 1986 at the international level, and most federations
followed suit.
David Baker
Manager, Officiating
CANADIAN HOCKEY
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:28:44 -0500
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
The original rules did allow checking. In the '90 WWC checking was
allowed. IIHF changed the rule. Does anybody know why IIHF doesn't allow
checking in women's hockey?
No checking means you can't separate a player from the puck with body
contact. It doesn't mean no contact. If you watch "Body Contact...the
Right Call" you'll see what is and what is not allowable contact. In my
opinion this rule is screwing up the game of hockey. I've seen women's
hockey played at levels from COWHL all the way down to house squirt. I
have never seen anything resembling consistency in the referees calls
with regard to body contact. The worst example was this year in
Brampton. Any time anybody bumped into another player the ref called a
penalty. It didn't matter if you were bumped into or if you bumped into
someone else. I'm not talking about checking either, but incidental
contact. And don't bother asking what the call was for, you just got
told to go home.
The point is that nobody is making the right call according to the tape
and this hurts the game.
Most people I know would prefer it if girls/women could check. Most
players I know would prefer it also. In fact there have been petitions
by some nations to the IIHF to allow checking in women's hockey. Ask the
players what they think. Ask the players if they think the inability of
most refs to make the right call isn't bad for the game.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Apr 97 20:47:57 PDT (Thu)
From: Chuck Collins
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
email@hidden wrote:
> You make a good point, why should we change the rules just because that's the
> way the men play the game. I agree. I just wonder why the original (?) rules
> for women did not allow checking. Men played the game first, then women
> played and they changed the rules, right? I could be wrong.
>
> I don't think that checking takes that much out of the game or takes away
> from the skills a player must possess.
I think the no checking rule in women's and youth girls' hockey is there
to promote growth of the sport. We see it on the male side in USA, where
parents allow their kids to play through squirts, but discourage them
from playing Pee Wee because they "don't like the violence" of the checking
game. Whether that attitude is justified in general, I'm not sure.
But I think that amateur women's hockey at the recreational level is better
for being no-check. This year, my daughter's 13-and-under team played against
an adult women's team, and one of the girls on our team was 8 years old and
about 70 pounds. She was quite effective, to the point of scoring twice. So
for my money, the no checking rule allows a much wider age range of players
to be effective against each other.
International women's hockey (i.e. "World Championship" level) originally
allowed checking, in the 1990 World Championships. Whether it was 1992 or
1994 when it was changed to being no check, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why the change was made. The book "On the Edge" almost made it
sound as if the change from checking to no checking in the international
women's game was a reaction to just how effective Angela James (team Canada)
was at the physical game.
I don't know if "changing the rules" is an accurate description. No checking
has always been a part of amateur hockey. It's just a question of where it
is applied.
At this stage in the development of the women's game, I think no checking
is the right choice. Once we have more than the current 50,000 - 75,000
players worldwide, maybe there can be women's leagues that allow checking.
Which brings me to a favorite point: Pee Wee Football leagues in the US
base their competivie divisions on weight rather than age. As hockey grows,
it might be an effective idea as well.
- Chuck Collins
email@hidden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:08:31 -0700
From: Anne Paulson
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
> In my opinion [no checking in girls'/women's play]
> is screwing up the game of hockey. I've seen women's
> hockey played at levels from COWHL all the way down to house squirt. I
> have never seen anything resembling consistency in the referees calls
> with regard to body contact. The worst example was this year in
> Brampton. Any time anybody bumped into another player the ref called a
> penalty. It didn't matter if you were bumped into or if you bumped into
> someone else. I'm not talking about checking either, but incidental
> contact. And don't bother asking what the call was for, you just got
> told to go home.
> The point is that nobody is making the right call according to the tape
> and this hurts the game.
>
> Most people I know would prefer it if girls/women could check. Most
> players I know would prefer it also.
This kind of confuses me. In my adult recreational league (which is mostly
male) there is no checking, all the refs are (somewhat) capable of calling the
games, the players understand pretty well what's allowed, and I haven't heard
complaints from players about wanting checking (we get hurt enough as is). Is
this not the case elsewhere? If refs can call non-checking adult
recreational games, and come to think of it, non-checking boys games up
'til the age when boys are allowed to bodycheck, then why can't they call
non-checking girls' and women's games?
-- Anne Paulson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 05:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Checking vs. making a living
Message-ID:
Somebody made the point early, and I haven't seen it since: There's one
excellent reason against women's hockey including body checking and that's
that we don't have any recourse to pay our bills should we suffer an injury
that disables us or puts us out of work for a lengthy period. Any NHLer or
minor league player has union support and contract clauses that protect them
financially in the event of injuries. That's the best reason why checking is
banned for almost all men's amateur levels and for all women's (inherently
amateur, at this point) levels.
Women players at the WWC repeatedly talked about how they had to give up
salaries and even pay for the opportunities to try out for their national
teams. How are they supposed to keep paying for their hockey, let alone their
rent, if they get a Pat LaFontaine-esque concussion? It only takes one bad
shot, or even a misfired attempt to hit someone else -- ask Travis Roy.
Margaret
Brooklyn Blades
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:49:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Gretzky & Messier
Message-ID:
Gretzky also had to take a salary cut because he was a free agent with
noticeably deteriorating skills (he's rebounded this year, but he was a
complete bust in St. Louis). Messier was already locked into a contract, and
the perception around the league is that he's simply aging better than
Gretzky. Messier also is a better leader, has won two more Cups than
Gretzky, and doesn't have Gretzky's reputation for whining about the ref. I
don't think his more physical style has anything to do with it - at this
point in their respective careers, Mark Messier is a more complete package
and a more valuable player than Wayne Gretzky. The reverse has been true for
most of their careers.
And the rising young scoring stars are, with maybe two exceptions, *all*
finesse players - Teemu Selanne, Paul Kariya, Peter Forsberg and Jaromir Jagr
come immediately to mind. Eric Lindros can hit as well as play finesse
hockey, but a lot of the reason for his huge salary was all that hype. And
he's way too fragile to be so aggressive, to the point that the Philly brass
has asked him to tone it down before he destroys his knees.
I don't think a player's physicality has much to do with him being a
superstar and getting the big bucks...it's more his scoring and whether he
has a good agent. One of the best bodycheckers in the league is a defenseman
in St. Louis named Marc Bergevin, and he doesn't make a quarter of what the
superstars make per year....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Checking vs. making a living
Message-ID:
Very good point. Most of the pros also have extra insurance (like Cam Neely)
in case of catastrophic injury. Too bad the NHL doesn't have a helmet
standard....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:10:59 -0400
From: Mary Wood
To: "'email@hidden'"
Subject: RE: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4BD8.7061AD80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Our team's experience at Brampton was quite the opposite of yours, there =
was alot of physical and body contact allowed during all of our games, =
much more so than we were used to getting away with. Penalties which =
were called, on both sides, had to do for the most part with illegal =
stick contact. So as long as our sticks were down and we were going for =
the puck, we were allowed alot of body contact.
Mary Wood
Chesapeake Bay Lightning
----------
From: email@hidden[SMTP:email@hidden]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 10:34 PM
To: Subscribers to
Subject: Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
The original rules did allow checking. In the '90 WWC checking was
allowed. IIHF changed the rule. Does anybody know why IIHF doesn't allow
checking in women's hockey?
No checking means you can't separate a player from the puck with body
contact. It doesn't mean no contact. If you watch "Body Contact...the
Right Call" you'll see what is and what is not allowable contact. In my
opinion this rule is screwing up the game of hockey. I've seen women's
hockey played at levels from COWHL all the way down to house squirt. I
have never seen anything resembling consistency in the referees calls
with regard to body contact. The worst example was this year in
Brampton. Any time anybody bumped into another player the ref called a
penalty. It didn't matter if you were bumped into or if you bumped into
someone else. I'm not talking about checking either, but incidental
contact. And don't bother asking what the call was for, you just got
told to go home.
The point is that nobody is making the right call according to the tape
and this hurts the game.=20
Most people I know would prefer it if girls/women could check. Most
players I know would prefer it also. In fact there have been petitions
by some nations to the IIHF to allow checking in women's hockey. Ask the
players what they think. Ask the players if they think the inability of
most refs to make the right call isn't bad for the game.
------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4BD8.7061AD80
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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==
------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4BD8.7061AD80--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:43:25 +0000
From: "Page, Don"
To: email@hidden
Subject: Niagara University Joins the Ice Wars
Message-ID:
Niagara University announces today that Margot Page will be the Head
Coach of the women's Ice Hockey team starting in September 1997. The
first year will be spent recruiting with the hope that women on
campus will be able to start a club team. The varsity program will
commence in the fall of 1998. Margot is a former three time WWC gold
medal winner with the Team Canada, 1990, 1992 and 1994. She has been
a senior AAA player in the COWHL since 1987. This past season she was
the league's leading scorer with the Mississauga Chiefs as well as
being selected to the first team all-stars and named the league MVP.
She has owned and directed MVP Hockey Camps for girls for the last
six years. She also was an assistant coach for the Ontario under 18
female team at the nationals in PEI this past season.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@hidden
To: email@hidden
Subject: To check or not to check; That is the question.
Message-ID:
I've been listening to all the debate on checking and figured I'd put my 2
cents in.
I must, first of all commend everyone for arguing their points and opinions
gracefully... Not everyone's going to agree about this. In fact, all the
discussion has changed my mind; At first, I was completely against checking
in women's hockey, mainly because of the obvious increased chance of injury.
(I think that's one thing we can all agree on. If checking is introduced
into the women's game, no matter how well we all prepare for it, learn how to
give and take a check properly, there WILL be a grater chance that you may be
injured... Anyone disagree with that?)
Getting back on track, I've changed my mind, at least a little. The women's
no checking rule needs to be addressed by the people that make the rules,
whether that be USA Hockey or Canada Hockey or the Olympic commission is
irrelevant. The decision has to involve/be up to the people who are paying &
playing the game since after all, it's their bodies.
My new/adjusted opinion is: At the adult amateur level, women's hockey and
men's hockey should:
a.) have the same rules
b.) the games should be reffed the SAME.
c.) Pushing, bumping and incidental contact should not be called as
penalties. ie: Brampton.
d.) They should allow the use of the body to separate the puck from the puck
carrier, (What are we wearing all this protective gear for!? Which by the
way, we has to piss and moan and protest to even get the equipment companies
to make stuff that fit women!!!)
e.) At the amateur/recreational level they should NOT allow boarding or board
checks. (I think allowing board checks would be inviting injury and
personally, I have a job I have to get up and go to in the morning and bills
to pay.)
f.) At the semi-pro or Olympiad level: I say, let them make there own damn
rules!!! They know what there capable of and what there limits are. Why
should anyone tell 'em otherwise.
We all can see that this isn't an issue that will be solved any time soon.
But in conclusion I'd like to say that it's lists like this and people like
us that can make changes happen. The powers that be, can not ignore the
issue for long with everyone blabbing about it.
Happiness, Joy and HOCKEY!! (Checking or no.)
Lisa Addario
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:32:24 -0700 (MST)
From: julee
To: Subscribers to
Subject: Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
Message-ID:
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Chuck Collins wrote:
> Which brings me to a favorite point: Pee Wee Football leagues in the US
> base their competivie divisions on weight rather than age. As hockey grows,
> it might be an effective idea as well.
I would agree with this. Recently our women's team played the girl's team
and I would say most of these "girls" were much larger than me. Size or
weight division even for older groups could be quite effective.
julee
email@hidden
------------------------------
Date: 18 Apr 1997 10:49:50 -0400
From: Jan de Regt
To: email@hidden (Return requested),
Subject: Re[2]: mud wrestling vs. checking
we ARE the players!!! And we are discussing it right here - and it
seems there are points on either side!
Jan.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: mud wrestling vs. checking
Author: email@hidden at Internet
Date: 4/17/97 10:50 PM
The original rules did allow checking. In the '90 WWC checking was
allowed. IIHF changed the rule. Does anybody know why IIHF doesn't allow
checking in women's hockey?
No checking means you can't separate a player from the puck with body
contact. It doesn't mean no contact. If you watch "Body Contact...the
Right Call" you'll see what is and what is not allowable contact. In my
opinion this rule is screwing up the game of hockey. I've seen women's
hockey played at levels from COWHL all the way down to house squirt. I
have never seen anything resembling consistency in the referees calls
with regard to body contact. The worst example was this year in
Brampton. Any time anybody bumped into another player the ref called a
penalty. It didn't matter if you were bumped into or if you bumped into
someone else. I'm not talking about checking either, but incidental
contact. And don't bother asking what the call was for, you just got
told to go home.
The point is that nobody is making the right call according to the tape
and this hurts the game.
Most people I know would prefer it if girls/women could check. Most
players I know would prefer it also. In fact there have been petitions
by some nations to the IIHF to allow checking in women's hockey. Ask the
players what they think. Ask the players if they think the inability of
most refs to make the right call isn't bad for the game.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Apr 1997 10:50:59 -0400
From: Jan de Regt
To: email@hidden (Return requested),
Subject: Re[6]: mud wrestling vs. checking
As you say, in the US checking begins (in most areas) at pee wee. I
often hear the argument to begin checking at mite "like they do in
Canada." When I was in Montreal this winter, I learned that the local
city league there didn't begin checking until Bantam. Interesting,
huh?
Jan.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[4]: mud wrestling vs. checking
Author: email@hidden at Internet
Date: 4/18/97 12:31 AM
email@hidden wrote:
> You make a good point, why should we change the rules just because that's the
> way the men play the game. I agree. I just wonder why the original (?) rules
> for women did not allow checking. Men played the game first, then women
> played and they changed the rules, right? I could be wrong.
>
> I don't think that checking takes that much out of the game or takes away
> from the skills a player must possess.
I think the no checking rule in women's and youth girls' hockey is there
to promote growth of the sport. We see it on the male side in USA, where
parents allow their kids to play through squirts, but discourage them
from playing Pee Wee because they "don't like the violence" of the checking
game. Whether that attitude is justified in general, I'm not sure.
But I think that amateur women's hockey at the recreational level is better
for being no-check. This year, my daughter's 13-and-under team played against
an adult women's team, and one of the girls on our team was 8 years old and
about 70 pounds. She was quite effective, to the point of scoring twice. So
for my money, the no checking rule allows a much wider age range of players to
be effective against each other.
International women's hockey (i.e. "World Championship" level) originally
allowed checking, in the 1990 World Championships. Whether it was 1992 or
1994 when it was changed to being no check, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why the change was made. The book "On the Edge" almost made it
sound as if the change from checking to no checking in the international
women's game was a reaction to just how effective Angela James (team Canada)
was at the physical game.
I don't know if "changing the rules" is an accurate description. No checking
has always been a part of amateur hockey. It's just a question of where it
is applied.
At this stage in the development of the women's game, I think no checking
is the right choice. Once we have more than the current 50,000 - 75,000
players worldwide, maybe there can be women's leagues that allow checking.
Which brings me to a favorite point: Pee Wee Football leagues in the US
base their competivie divisions on weight rather than age. As hockey grows,
it might be an effective idea as well.
- Chuck Collins
email@hidden
------------------------------
End of WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 540
*********************************