Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
For me it is about re-defining what we mean by checking not eliminating it all together. Over simplifying but it is about what we mean by checking and how this is different from hitting. Hitting is one type of checking but where it is not just about gaining the puck back, that for me is the stuff that should go away.
Essentially the game should be about having, keeping and taking the puck back - not trying to hurt the other player.
|
I hear you on the bolded part. There are a lot of hits that I would like to see penalized more heavily. The hit on Dube on game 1 for example. I truly don't believe there was malicious intent there but he didn't have the puck. An interference penalty should be impeding a player without the puck. Smoking him before he can get the puck should be a serious infraction, accidental or not.
But the majority of hits in hockey are against the boards, right after a player has played the puck. This has always been a hockey strategy. Wear down another team's defense by punishing then every time they handle the puck in their own zone. I have watched many a long playoff series where this strategy has determined the winner. I like this type of hockey. It rewards strength, courage and also skill.
BUT
I have seen a lot of dirty hits against the boards. Especially in minor hockey. Players that don't how to take a check. Players that don't know how to deliver a clean check along the boards or probably more often, let their emotions get the better of them.
These hits aren't about separating puck from player but to me, make up a huge component of the physicality of the game. I believe there are ways to make this type of play safer without changing what I consider to be a fundamental part of the sport.