 |
Are Automatic Suspensions
Ruining High School Hockey In Toronto?
Editorial By:
Robert Kirwan
President and CEO
Infocom Canada Business Consultants Inc.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| The President of the York Region Athletic Association
(Toronto), Steve Shantz, warned the coaches and players of the 20 teams in
one of the Greater Toronto Area's main high school hockey leagues
that the league could be shut down only weeks after the opening game of
the 2003-2004 hockey season. The
threat stemmed from what Shantz calls a spike in on-ice violence. The
York league is one of the biggest in the province, with approximately 700
players, and is unique in including teams from public, Catholic and
private schools.
"I
fear that if changes are not made, high school hockey as we know it in
York Region may be at risk," Shantz told coaches and players in an
e-mail. Shantz continued to write, in the same email, "As coaches and
leaders in education through sport, we need to change the behaviour of
some of our student/athletes and even more unfortunately, some of our
colleagues."
During
the first two weeks of play, a total of 17 players had been ejected from
games, including ten(10) for fighting majors. From what we understand, in the York high school
league, a fighting infraction carries an automatic season's suspension.
One coach has even been called in front of the discipline board because of
allegations that he abused a game official.
Of
the 10 fighting suspensions, seven came from a single incident - obviously
what people refer to as a line-brawl. This is not a pleasant thing to see,
but it is something that does happen from time to time in minor hockey.
Shantz
has stated that in his opinion, part of the problem stems from the fact
that players are bringing habits to school hockey they pick up in
community leagues, which tend to be more tolerant of fighting. "Fighting
is not part of the game in high school hockey," Shantz said. "But
it's an unfortunate aspect that the kids bring some of the less desirable
things they do in community hockey and that are tolerated there."
Many hockey experts feel that the
league is making a huge mistake with its discipline policy. In fact, some
feel that the league may as well fold, because it won't be around much
longer with rules as strict as they have in place right now. The same
opinion holds true for any minor hockey association which feels it can
curb violence by implementing a strict, zero-tolerance policy for certain
infraction. In reality, in whatever segment of society one examines, there
is no such thing as a zero-tolerance policy. As soon as you put in a
zero-tolerance policy, those in charge of implementing the policy find
ways of avoiding or ignoring situations in which they might have to take
unpleasant action.
Ending a young student's hockey season simply for receiving a
five-minute penalty for fighting is simply too rigid a policy. In
a league run by educators who are committed professionally to promoting
rehabilitation and training, with a goal of helping a person to overcome
his personal difficulties and re-enter the mainstream, it seems out of
character to then implement a policy which is so unforgiving as to
automatically remove a player from playing hockey for the season because
of a judgment call by a
referee. Yes! Fighting is a judgment call. One referee may eject two
players who simply wrestle to the ice, while another may give a minor for
roughing to players who drop their gloves and actually throw a couple of
punches. Both calls may be the correct calls under the circumstances, but
no two referees will see the incident the same way.
Another
problem with the automatic season-long suspension is that you will seldom
find any good (and the qualification here is good) referee giving a fighting major in that league,
unless it is such a vicious attack that there is absolutely no other
possible choice. I would
suspect that there are many incidents whereby two players have engaged in
fisticuffs only to be given double minors for roughing and perhaps a
misconduct. Any referee who
has himself played the game would never want to end a player's season
because of a fight in the heat of battle.
We
have witnessed the same situation with the checking from behind rule.
The automatic game misconduct which goes along with the rule has resulted
in a large percentage of checks from behind being called boarding or
cross-checking. A good referee will never be too quick to call a hitting
from behind, unless there is absolutely no other choice. Next time you
watch a minor hockey game at any level, see for yourself. Count the number
of times that players are "hit from behind" with no call or else
a boarding call.
York
also requires players who receive five-minute penalties to appear before a
disciplinary panel. I would also assume that the referee is required to
appear before the panel to explain the call. Once again, I would suggest
that there are very few major penalties being called in that league. Not
because the play isn't deserving of the major penalties, but because
referees will do anything they can to give a minor penalty to an
infraction instead of giving a major and then being required to give up
some more of his time to attend a hearing. Referees are only human. Why
would a referee want to hand out a major penalty if it means giving up
another night to listen to try to defend his call in front of a
disciplinary board of people who were not at the game to see the incident?
If Mr. Shantz and the rest of his board
really want to reduce the violence in the game of hockey, they should give
referees more discretion to administer rules and punishment on the ice,
and not in the Board Room. The CHA rules are quite sufficient with respect
to fighting and other majors. They give the referees discretion in most
areas, although they too could be eased up a bit. High
School hockey is a great option for many players. Don't ruin it by coming
up with rules which make absolutely no sense and which 'will not be
implemented' by referees. If
I was giving advice to referees in the York Region, I would tell them to
avoid doing those games for personal safety reasons. Knowing how high
school students have reacted violently in the GTA in recent months, I
would fear for my life if I gave a 16-year old boy a fighting major and
caused him to be suspended for the rest of the season. I would fear that
the boy or some of his friends would find a way of retaliating against me
or my family. Finally,
every year, it becomes more and more apparent to me that the game of
hockey would be so much better if decisions were made by players, and not
coaches and board members who have forgotten what the game is all about -
fun! |
| |
|
After The Whistle would like to hear your comments on this issue.
CONTACT
US HERE |
| |
| This comment is from Steve
Shantz, President of the York Region Athletic Association |
I found the perspective you gave in your article
interesting. As an athletic association we have considered many of
your points as we meet with our coaches and referees to address the
on-going issues arising in hockey.
I thought it important to address some of the assumptions that you
made in your article, not to defend our position, but rather to
contribute to the discussion. As your website says, it is important
to have these discussions if we are to continue to improve organized
hockey while keeping it first and fore most FUN. Like you, we
believe we must change the behavior of a minority of our
student/athletes, coaches and parents.
The "automatic ejection" for a fighting major was not
instituted by the Executive of the Association, but was rather voted
in by the hockey coaches themselves. However, this is not to say
that there is no room for appeal by the student/athlete in question.
In our Association, every student/athlete ejected from a game in
any sport, must appear before a Board of Reference. The purpose
of the Board is to make the ejection in to a teachable moment so
that the student/athlete can better react to similar situations in
the future, whether it is in sport or other areas of life. As you
said in your article, as educators we are committed professionally
to promoting rehabilitation and training, with a goal of helping a
person to overcome his personal difficulties and re-enter the
mainstream. Fighting has no place in high school sport. As educators
we would never tolerate students fighting in the hall, and since
school sanctioned sport, where ever it is played, is an extension of
the school, fighting should not be tolerated here either. Playing
high school sport is not a right, it is a privilege. As educators we
have an obligation to protect all of our student-athletes from undue
danger associated with playing sport. I would consider fighting
undue danger.
You also assumed that the game official must appear at the Board
of Reference meeting. We have recognized the commitment of our sport
officials and that their time is better spent supporting student
learning by officiating. Instead of appearing, officials are asked
to fill out an ejection report, in the case of hockey, found on the
back of the game sheet. The incident report asks the official for
specific information that then serves as the referee's official
statement at the Board of Reference.
We rely on the skill, professionalism and discretion of our
certified officials to, as you say, deal with situations on the ice.
If the official, in their best judgment, feels that a
student/athlete deserves a game misconduct for fighting, as an
Association we support them in that decision. However, if
information comes to light in the Board of Reference meeting, the
Board has the discretion to reduce the year suspension as they see
fit. This takes the pressure you refer to, off the official and
builds in a check to ensure that rules are not arbitrarily applied.
This is not the Board of Reference shirking it's duty or looking for
a way to "ignore or avoid situations in which they may have to
take unpleasant actions", but rather ensuring the outcome is
what is best for the student/athlete and the league.
While I understand your opinion that a one year suspension is harsh,
as an Association and as hockey coaches we disagree. And contrary to
your position, it has worked in our league. Last year no one was
given a game misconduct for fighting. You may argue that that is
because referees don't want to end a student/athlete's season.
However, those same referees have used their professionalism and
discretion, and assessed fighting majors this season. Yes we have
had 10 ejections for fighting, but we have not had a single one
since my original appeal to coaches to stress the objectives of high
school sport as outlined in our constitution and to reaffirm the
consequences of fighting within our sport playing guidelines for
hockey. It has been my experience that when you set reasonable
expectations for people, and communicate those expectations clearly,
they will meet or exceed those expectations.
While I respect the majority of your opinions, even though they
differ from my own and those of our Association, I have two concerns
with the points you make in your article. The first is the seeming
contradiction between your desire to improve hockey and your
assertion that a "good referee" wouldn't assess a fighting
major if it meant the end of a student/athlete's season. We can't
have it both ways. My personal belief is that it is this attitude
that has perpetuated the "need" some players believe they
have to fight. 'If the referee isn't going to call a penalty, I have
to do something to protect my fellow players' is a response I
commonly hear from players in my local community league. A league
which incidentally suspends players for a set number of games for
fighting. While I believe that players should be allowed to play the
game, the rules are there for a reason. Perhaps some officials need
to use their discretion and professionalism to assess the merits of
the situation and not think of extraneous suspensions that they can
not control. I would argue that a good referee calls the game
according to the interpretations of the rules outlined at the yearly
clinics or referees' meetings.
The second concern I have is with your advice that referees not
officiate games for "personal safety reasons". While there
may be incidents in the GTA where people have reacted violently,
there has never been an incident even approaching this in YRAA
hockey. Your assertion that young student/athletes would take
revenge for a perceived injustice is offensive to young people as a
whole. It is attitudes like these that perpetuate the stereo-type of
all teens as thugs which in my experience is far from the case.
Again I refer to people living up or down to the expectations others
have of them.
The referees I have talked to enjoy officiating games in York Region
because of the overall sportsmanship and quality of play. Many of
our student/athletes have stopped playing community hockey and focus
on high school hockey because it is FUN. They point out that it is
the focus on skill and the hard hitting nature of the high school
game that they enjoy and the fact that games are not ruined by
fighting.
I appreciate the counter-point you have provided to our stance on
fighting in York Region high school hockey. It is always positive to
see both sides of an issue and I look forward to reading your
thoughts on my response. Awareness of issues like suspensions and
the others presented in your web-site's editorial section can only
help the dialogue needed to continue to improve our national sport.
Yours in education through sport,
Steve Shantz |
|
Editor's Commentary:
Thank you for providing our readers with very important information to
clarify some of the assumptions which I had to make in the original
editorial. As mentioned, hockey is a wonderful sport, mainly because of
the people associated with the game. Your association seems to be
providing an excellent hockey experience for young men in the York
Region and if your coaches and players are satisfied, and having fun, what
more could you ask. I congratulate you on making a real difference in the
York Region and wish your league all the best. Thank you again for your
comments and perspective. It would indeed be a very boring world if we all
had the same points of view on matters as complex sports and recreation. |
| |
|
Just happened to check out your web site for the first
time today.
Call me silly for stating the obvious. In the
article regarding "automatic suspensions", fighting and
hitting from behind doesn't sound like fun. I know they
certainly are not part of any school curriculum that I'm aware of.
Regards,
Concerned Hockey Mom,
Sandy Emery
Sherwood Park, AB
|
|
Editor's Commentary:
Thank you for your observation, Sandy. I totally agree that fighting and
hitting from behind deserve a game misconduct. And, depending on the
severity of the infractions, some incidents may deserve a longer
suspension. However, to impose an "automatic" season-long
suspension for these infractions - with zero tolerance - is simply asking
for trouble. Referees are human. They have played hockey themselves in
most cases. They know how it would feel to receive a penalty which would
end your season. By imposing an "automatic suspension" on a
referee's judgment call, Referees-in-Chief and Board members are simply
taking the easy way out and "passing the buck". Instead of
trying to curb this kind of behaviour and rehabilitate players who are
playing outside of the rules, they would rather simply allow a teenager
who is refereeing under sometimes very difficult circumstances to make the
decision for them. It is simply too much pressure and referees will find
some other call to make in 90% of the situations.
I was a classroom teacher for 28 years. I can tell you that the
teachers who set very strict rules and stated that they would apply in all
cases with no exception were the ones who soon faced situations where it
was necessary to bend or overlook those rules. The same is the case in
hockey. Stricter rules are not the answer. Training referees; finding
coaches who are behind the bench for the right reasons; punishing
instigators and trouble-makers; bringing respect for authority back into
the game; and removing parents who have no self control will all go a long
way to improving the game. Automatic suspension will not.
In conclusion, I once again state that the greater the suspension and
the greater the consequence for an infraction, the less it will be called
by referees. Change hitting from behind to a two-minute plus a ten-minute
misconduct or a five-minute plus a game misconduct and allow the League
Administrators to determine the length of suspension and you will see more
hitting from behind calls in the game. As it is now, most of the hits from
behind are being called boarding. You don't have to agree with my opinion,
but that is a fact. |
|
Thank you for your reply. I strongly agree with your
opinion and commend your efforts to advocate on the
behalf of our young hockey players. It is an issue
being faced Canada wide in many Associations.
I believe it has been said, "It takes
a whole community to raise a child". Kids are an
investment for our future and they are worth it.
Sincerely,
Sandy Emery
Sherwood Park, AB
|
|
|
|
|
|
