In response to my opposition to the prohibition of checking in
women's hockey, one person writes:
 
> I could not disagree with you more about the checking.  The thing I
love about Women's hockey is that usually it is clean.  Unlike the
Men's game, which can turn into a junior NHL match of push and grab,
the women play with skill.  I know many people like the physical side
of the game.  I for one haven't watched many NHL games for years,
because I prefer the cleaner college game.  Hitting and fighting
being part of the game is just silly.  My favorite times playing
have always been outside, with a few friends, just fooling around.
A contest, to me, can be very entertaining, if the skills of skating,
passing, and shooting are the main event.
 
This was actually addressed to me privately but it raises some issues
which I'd like others who've seen the women's game to respond to. My
apologies to the writer for the liberty taken.
 
I agree completely about the ugliness of the NHL's fighting and
"physical play" (a euphemism for goonery). But in my opinion,
checking is not the same as dirty play. Here are some things that I
really felt detracted from the game I saw:
 
1. The forwards streak across the blue line, coming in two on two.
Because checking is illegal, the puck-carrier's defenseman must
"establish position" after skating backwards (no mean feat), then
attempt to poke check the puck away as her opponent swerves to avoid
hitting her.
 
Ultimately, the players collide gracelessly and puck is left in limbo,
uncontrolled in front of the net, until somebody recovers her balance
and scoops it up. The opportunities both for a splendid scoring
chance and a good defensive maneuvar are lost because
"intentional contact" (or whatever they call it) will result in a
penalty, and the play devolves into an exercise in Brownian motion.
 
2. The puck goes into the corner and four women pursue it. It stays
there _forever_, because no one can use her strength to alter the
essentially static situation.
 
3. There's no forechecking! A team does not have the option to apply
extraordinary pressure while risking the breakaway when their defense
is caught up ice. This is one of the most exciting parts of the
end of a close game; it is removed as a strategic option by the
prohibition on checking.
 
I'm very sympathetic to those who want hockey to be clean and highly
skilled. I think that the hockey I've seen over the years in college
is just that, and that because of this the college game is far more
entertaining than watching Tie Domi and Lyndon Byers whack each other
over the head with clubs ala the Flintstones. I don't think checking
is gratuitous, premeditated violence in the way that, say, every
other cheap shot by Cam Neely is (sorry, Chris). Ultimately, I think
that checking is an organic part of the game, the active suppression
of which detracts from the play. Fighting and brutality are
intentionally added to the game to appeal to a few cementhead "fans,"
and are actively reinforced by what for lack of a better term I'll
call the "Derek Sanderson infantile rock-em, sock-em robots
mentality". It should, and easily can, be prohibited.
 
Checking aside, I noticed another thing about the women's game:
there were almost no offsides or icing stoppages. Like, five in an
entire period!
 
Also, the women's shifts were very long - up to 90 seconds by
informal estimate. Maybe this is why they were so slow - they were
just TIRED.
 
And why do they only play 18 minute periods? What's 2 extra minutes,
other than exemplary sexist condescension?
 
- Greg