The actual rule is labelled "hitting from behind".  According to the rules,
the penalty committed on open ice can be a minor or major but checking into
the boards is considered flagrant and is a major with either a GM or a DQ .
The call as announced at the games was definitely boarding but that wouldn't
be the first time the announcer got a call wrong.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Hampton, Nathan E. <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Isn't it the case for checking from behind, that it is a 5-minute major and
> Game DQ automatically? If the call was checking from behind, than there is
> no choice or option for the referee. Normally referees try to wiggle out of
> the automatic DQ by calling boarding instead of checking from behind. That
> is where the real judgment comes in. But if the call was boarding, and then
> the Game DQ was done separately, then it must have been for a different
> reason.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> On 1/19/09 10:22 AM, "Mark Lewin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I understand that the rules are very specific in defining how a game
> misconduct differs from a game disqualification under rule 4.  But that was
> not my question.  What I am interested in is the criteria used by the
> officials to determine whether a game misconduct, a game disqualification
> or
> neither of the above is warranted.
>
> Rule 6 defines the penalties and their "punishments" ranging from minor to
> major with misconduct/disqualification.  Boarding (it is written) carries
> either a minor or a major. There is no mention of either a game misconduct
> or disqualification. As another poster noted, the only reasonable
> explanation  for the call was that there was a major for boarding and the
> game disqualification was for a different infraction (excessive roughness
> rule 6,section 13).
>
> The question I posed was what criteria is used to assess that penalty (it
> is
> an automatic disqualification).  The only "reasonable" answer I've seen so
> far is that the referee makes the determination based on the extent of the
> injury.  The injured player could be embellishing his injury but the rules
> leave it up to the officials to determine that (which, of course, is their
> job).
>
> Having watched the replay of the hit on television, it appears that
> Burgdoerfer hit the Cornell player 10-15 feet away from the boards.  It
> looked like a clean check except that it was in the direction of the
> boards.  Unfortunately, the forward got caught up in his skates, went down
> as he approached the boards and slammed into the boards shoulder first. He
> was down for quite a while. This all happened with less than 10 seconds
> left
> in the game and RPI was down 3-0 so the hit really had no bearing on the
> outcome of the game. The referee stood in the vicinity of the injured
> player
> while the trainer came out watching the proceedings while he and other
> officials worked to keep players from the two teams from a brawl. The
> referee did not call the DQ immediately so apparently he felt that the
> injury was real and not embellished.  To my thinking, his call was based on
> the fact that the hit was unnecessary at that point in the game, the injury
> caused was real and that any other call (major or GM) was meaningless since
> the game was over at that point. Burgdoerfer was unfortunate in that the
> check was not particularly vicious but circumstances caused the Cornell
> player to be out of control at the point he hit the boards and that caused
> an injury.  He could have stayed up and been uninjured but, then again, he
> could have hit the wall head first and been paralyzed. Burgdoerfer was
> penalized because he chose to hit the player in a manner that could have
> had
> major consequences.  I did not see that Burgdoerfer demonstrated an "intent
> to injure", but, nevertheless, he put the other player in danger.   Based
> on
> this, I think the referee made a reasonable call.
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM, J. Adam Butts <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The NCAA rulebook is pretty explicit about when a DQ is assessed versus a
> > GM.  The penalties are defined in Rule 4.  GM is 4-4b and is basically
> "get
> > out of here" with the player leaving the game being played with no
> further
> > penalty.  A DQ is defined in 4-5 and includes ejections from subsequent
> > games in a progressive manner.  DQs can also generally result in further
> > penalties assessed by the league.
> >
> > The NCAA rulebook also has a "Summary of Penalties" section where you can
> > quickly scan the different situations that result in one or the other.
>  If
> > you do this, it is immediately obvious that the DQ is the more severe
> > penalty.
> >
> > You will not find boarding under the DQ list; as you pointed out, it
> > warrants a minor or major.  However, I imagine the DQ was added under
> 6-13,
> > which allows a DQ to be assessed for excessive roughness.
> >
> > J. Adam Butts
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
>