Checking In Womens Hockey

[geaux_sioux]

 Does anyone else feel like checking could help the sport of women's hockey immensely? Most top women's players would like to be allowed to check. It would also necessitate players are stronger on their skates and better skaters over all. To me it's ridiculous that checking isn't allowed and it ruins the sport rendering it unwatchable unless it's a gold medal USA vs Canada game. Just a thought.

[cberkas]

9 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

 Does anyone else feel like checking could help the sport of women's hockey immensely? Most top women's players would like to be allowed to check. It would also necessitate players are stronger on their skates and better skaters over all. To me it's ridiculous that checking isn't allowed and it ruins the sport rendering it unwatchable unless it's a gold medal USA vs Canada game. Just a thought.

Yes, it needs checking then there would be a reason for them to actually dive like I saw the US do in the third a couple times.

[UNDBIZ]

It couldn't make the sport worse

[Snake]

Will adding checking at the higher levels, say 15U and above, increase or decrease the number of girls playing the sport at those levels?  If it causes the numbers to decline, I want nothing to do with checking. 

This sport needs more athletes, plain and simple. The USA and Canada dominate because they have the numbers. The only way the college game will get better is if the talent pool grows. 

Mediocre teams that can check are still mediocre.  

[geaux_sioux]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Will adding checking at the higher levels, say 15U and above, increase or decrease the number of girls playing the sport at those levels?  If it causes the numbers to decline, I want nothing to do with checking. 

This sport needs more athletes, plain and simple. The USA and Canada dominate because they have the numbers. The only way the college game will get better is if the talent pool grows. 

Mediocre teams that can check are still mediocre.  

Basically every Womens hockey player I have ever asked thinks it's stupid there is no checking since it allows the shity players to get by without needing to improve as much. 

[cberkas]

3 hours ago, Snake said:

Will adding checking at the higher levels, say 15U and above, increase or decrease the number of girls playing the sport at those levels?  If it causes the numbers to decline, I want nothing to do with checking. 

This sport needs more athletes, plain and simple. The USA and Canada dominate because they have the numbers. The only way the college game will get better is if the talent pool grows. 

Mediocre teams that can check are still mediocre.  

The US - Canada game they were crosschecking each other in the face, elbows to the face, and punches to the head.

[Snake]

3 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

Basically every Womens hockey player I have ever asked thinks it's stupid there is no checking since it allows the shity players to get by without needing to improve as much. 

I'm not advocating for or against checking...just thinking out loud about how it would be implemented and what a potential unintended consequence could be.

It would certainly increase the entertainment value, but as for player development I could argue that a larger talent pool would force the "shity" players to improve more so than forcing them to deal with checking.  I could also argue that allowing checking in the world championships would widen the gap between the North American teams and the rest of the world, making the non-USA/Canada games even more unwatchable.  I feel they are that much better.

If checking means less players playing through High School, I don't want it.  If it doesn't affect growth or enhances it, put me in the "yes" column!  I gotta think/hope that it has at least been talked about or studied by the sport's governing bodies. 

[geaux_sioux]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

I'm not advocating for or against checking...just thinking out loud about how it would be implemented and what a potential unintended consequence could be.

It would certainly increase the entertainment value, but as for player development I could argue that a larger talent pool would force the "shity" players to improve more so than forcing them to deal with checking.  I could also argue that allowing checking in the world championships would widen the gap between the North American teams and the rest of the world, making the non-USA/Canada games even more unwatchable.  I feel they are that much better.

If checking means less players playing through High School, I don't want it.  If it doesn't affect growth or enhances it, put me in the "yes" column!  I gotta think/hope that it has at least been talked about or studied by the sport's governing bodies. 

Checking necessitates picking your head up, faster hands and decisions, getting stronger on your feet, and being more aggressive on defense. All of these things are why we love mens hockey. Frankly it's sexist that women aren't  allowed to check so maybe instead of a Title Whine gripe they should talk about adjusting the rules. As to the participation how often do you hear of parents not allowing their kids to play hockey because of the checking? Do you think more boys would play hockey if there was no checking?  Larger talent pool doesn't mean a thing if nobody wants to watch the sport and the really good players aren't even as good as HS boys.  It's my opinion that adding checking to women's hockey would save the sport from itself and make it watchable.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Checking will never be allowed, just like UND will never drop WH.

[The Sicatoka]

Think of it like lacrosse in the NCAA. Men's and women's are effectively two different games with two different sets of gear and different rules.

http://www.dummies.com/sports/lacrosse/how-womens-field-lacrosse-differs-from-mens-field-lacrosse/ 

[geaux_sioux]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

Think of it like lacrosse in the NCAA. Men's and women's are effectively two different games with two different sets of gear and different rules.

Women's lacrosse is a joke. Worse than women's hockey even. 

[cberkas]

8 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Think of it like lacrosse in the NCAA. Men's and women's are effectively two different games with two different sets of gear and different rules.

http://www.dummies.com/sports/lacrosse/how-womens-field-lacrosse-differs-from-mens-field-lacrosse/ 

They have been wanting full helmets for awhile now.

[The Sicatoka]

3 minutes ago, cberkas said:

They have been wanting full helmets for awhile now.

Not the women. They still just wear eye protection because contact, checking, is verboten. 

[cberkas]

2 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Not the women. They still just wear eye protection because contact, checking, is verboten. 

I know, but they want the full helmets like the men's because of concussions.

[SiouxVolley]

The US National Womens soccer team got beat by a 15 year old boys team, FC Dallas under 15, 5-2.  So would the UND women's hockey team beat a local bantam team if checking was not allowed?  This is what women's hockey is competing against for viewers:  boys bantam hockey.  Why should UND have to subsidize that?

[cberkas]

18 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

The US National Womens soccer team got beat by a 15 year old boys team, FC Dallas under 15, 5-2.  So would the UND women's hockey team beat a local bantam team if checking was not allowed?  This is what women's hockey is competing against for viewers:  boys bantam hockey.  Why should UND have to subsidize that?

That wasn't even a game, it was a scrimmage. 

[geaux_sioux]

On April 10, 2017 at 1:29 AM, cberkas said:

That wasn't even a game, it was a scrimmage. 

You think those ladies took it easy on those poor boys to make them feel good?

[The Sicatoka]

I've been holding my tongue; but, it needs to be said:

I attended a couple WIH games at UND in person; I watched a couple on TV. 

Forget the checking aspect; contact aside, if I want to see that level of speed and skill again I'll attend the NDHSAA West Regional boys playoffs. 

[geaux_sioux]

41 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I've been holding my tongue; but, it needs to be said:

I attended a couple WIH games at UND in person; I watched a couple on TV. 

Forget the checking aspect; contact aside, if I want to see that level of speed and skill again I'll attend the NDHSAA West Regional boys playoffs. 

The women would have pulled up in fourth for the Gambucci cup this year.

[cberkas]

1 hour ago, geaux_sioux said:

You think those ladies took it easy on those poor boys to make them feel good?

Probably, the ladies don't act shot like the men do during games. I'd also say the US women's team could beat the US men's team.

[Old Time Hockey]

Dumbest thread ever.  Comments from a bunch of clowns that never played hockey thinking checking would better women's hockey.  I used to post on here a lot, but the constant idiocy drove me away.  I came back to see what the village idiots were saying and this is what I find.  Glad to see most of you agreeing with gfhockey on this subject.  

 

By the way, how do you explain the ever exciting football program losing 2.3 million?  

What a joke!

[geaux_sioux]

51 minutes ago, Old Time Hockey said:

Dumbest thread ever.  Comments from a bunch of clowns that never played hockey thinking checking would better women's hockey.  I used to post on here a lot, but the constant idiocy drove me away.  I came back to see what the village idiots were saying and this is what I find.  Glad to see most of you agreeing with gfhockey on this subject.  

 

By the way, how do you explain the ever exciting football program losing 2.3 million?  

What a joke!

Well the clowns that play womens hockey want to check although I'd love to hear why they can't/shouldn't.

[UND-1]

7 hours ago, Old Time Hockey said:

Dumbest thread ever.  Comments from a bunch of clowns that never played hockey thinking checking would better women's hockey.  I used to post on here a lot, but the constant idiocy drove me away.  I came back to see what the village idiots were saying and this is what I find.  Glad to see most of you agreeing with gfhockey on this subject.  

 

By the way, how do you explain the ever exciting football program losing 2.3 million?  

What a joke!

Take another break.

[darell1976]

15 hours ago, Old Time Hockey said:

Dumbest thread ever.  Comments from a bunch of clowns that never played hockey thinking checking would better women's hockey.  I used to post on here a lot, but the constant idiocy drove me away.  I came back to see what the village idiots were saying and this is what I find.  Glad to see most of you agreeing with gfhockey on this subject.  

 

By the way, how do you explain the ever exciting football program losing 2.3 million?  

What a joke!

Football won a conference title in 2016, how did the women's hockey program do? Football put over 10,000 people in the seats, how may hundreds showed up for women's hockey? Football has a parade named after one of its games, is there a parade for women's hockey...or hockey in general? 

[Wildfan]

1 hour ago, darell1976 said:

Football won a conference title in 2016, how did the women's hockey program do? Football put over 10,000 people in the seats, how may hundreds showed up for women's hockey? Football has a parade named after one of its games, is there a parade for women's hockey...or hockey in general? 

Wasn't the deficit not including sponsorships and alumni donations? If I had to guess more than 99% of the REA sponsorships would be there with or without WIH. FB draws their own, and have a huge alumni base. The loss of FB donors would in my opinion hurt alot more than WIH donors. The two most successful alumni for WIH had to go and make a big fuss to get more pay and benefits of a full time position to play one week a year for their country when alot of people would love to play for their country for free (if there would not have been a big backlash at these girls asked to play if boycot im sure many would've taken the offer).