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
 
 

 

Copyright © 2011 All Rights Reserved
Infocom Canada Business Consultants Inc.
Phone: (705) 969-7215      Email
rkirwan@infocomcanada.com