> please keep that in mind.  In the ECAC, hitting from behind is a common
> contact penalty.  More common than tripping I would say.  I've never seen
> a player receive anything but a two minute minor for this.  Sometimes this
 
Since all divisions of the NCAA follow the same NCAA rule book, there
shouldn't be, and aren't, differences between the various conferences
(ie. ECAC, Hockey East, etc.).  If a player is injured after being checked
from behind, the offender will be assessed a major penalty.  And "checking
from behind" is not a catch-all penalty as you called it.  More often,
high-sticking, and sometimes interference, are used in that manner.
 
>     As for the Hill incident, I have a question.  No matter
> what the infraction is, if a player draws blood it is an automatic major
> penalty.
 
Not necessarily.  The presence of blood is not the definitive factor in
assessing a major penalty, nor is the lack of blood indicative of a
minor penalty.  For most rules, such as cross-checking, elbowing,
and hooking, which are usually minors, if the fouled player is injured,
then a major penalty will be assessed.
 
> However, if a player is temporarily paralyzed and taken off the ice
> on a stretcher with his spine immobilized it is only a minor.  What gives?
> It seems that a major penalty would have been more applicable.
 
No argument here.  As stated above, a minor penalty becomes a major penalty
if the fouled player is injured.  I don't know enough about the case
discussed here, but from what I can gather, yes, a major penalty would
have been appropriate.
 
---
Kenny Zalewski -- Head Referee, RPI Intramural Ice Hockey Program
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 65 13th Street, 1st floor, Troy, NY, 12180
[log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]