A Misuse of the Hockey Term “Checking”
Okay, while this is probably one of the most important subjects I’ve ever addressed here at CoachChic.com, it might nonetheless be one of the shortest posts to be found among these pages. The reason I say that is because it’s fairly straight-forward. But, let’s see how I do…
Mark O. writes in a recent email to point-out a frequent misuse of the term “checking”. And he asks if I might clarify this — for his team and for our readers.
A: I have a suspicion I know exactly what Mark is getting at. Mainly, I think, the mix-up comes when folks use the term “checking” when they really mean “body-checking”. As a matter of fact, almost every time I ask a group of young players to define the former, they’ll blurt-out something like, “Smash ‘em into the boards!”
Used properly, however, the term “checking” runs the gamut in everything a player does in a defensive role, or when his team doesn’t control the puck. In other words, we could ask a player to “check his man” (or “cover him”). That word can also be used as a noun, as in “that guy is your check” (or “that’s the man you should cover”).
That established, there are numerous more specific areas of the “checking game”… As examples, one can backcheck, forecheck, use a poke-check, or apply a body-check. And in every case, the given “checker” is performing some sort of defensive duty.
Now, I’d like to think that I pretty well covered Mark’s question. However, I’d like to add my own two cents worth here…
You see, I still need to pinch myself every time I go to use any one of the terms from above. In other words, I still find the need to think for a second to make sure I’m speaking or writing correctly. I mean, even I can get lazy, and that’s why I want to urge every reader of this post to be as disciplined as possible when using any hockey terms. Hey, there are little ears out there, and they’re more than likely to repeat whatever they hear from their coaches, their parents or any older players.
CHECKING IN ICE HOCKEY SEEMS TO MEAN TO ME, KEEPING YOUR ASSIGNED OPPONENT IN CHECK AS IN MARKING YOUR OPPONENT IN SOCCER .
I BELIEVE BODY CHECKINGING IN ICE HOCKEY TODAY IS TOO VIOLENT, AND SHOULD BE DIALED IN………I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR BODY CHECKING WAS TO GAIN POSSESSION OF THE PUCK, ….NOW IT’S SOMETIMES LEANING TOWARDS HURTING OR CAUSING INJURY TO YOUR OPPONENT AND GAINING POSSESSION OF THE PUCK IS SOMETIMES SECONDARY …. THIS VIOLENT ASPECT OF ICE HOCKEY MAY LEAD TO ITS FUTURE DOWNFALL UNLESS RULES ARE CHANGED AND/OR ENFORCED PROPERLY.
With all due respect, Fred, I think we have to separate our game in order to pass any sort of judgement…
Assuming you’ve read at least some of my feelings when it comes to advising my students or players on their way up the hockey ladder, I’ve always said that they can’t play either selfishly or dangerously or recklessly anywhere in amateur hockey. Perform in any of those ways, and a player is likely to be greatly penalized or even banned from his or her team, association or league. And, if a young player thinks he can emulate a professional in the wrong ways, I’ll tell him that he’ll never make it through the minor levels to reach the pros.
Now, that said, I think the pro game has to be viewed in a very different way. Just like the owner of a plumbing company or an automobile repair shop, I believe those running a professional sports franchise has to do (just about) anything to satisfy the customer. Said yet another way, the only way a pro organization can stay in business is by filling seats in their arena, selling team related merchandise, attracting viewers to televised games or listeners to radio broadcasts, selling sponsorship, and more. For sure, exciting play makes most of that possible, but it’s up to interpretation what kind of game will satisfy a team’s need to financially survive.
Then, perhaps one thing that might help make my last point… Professional women’s hockey has suffered badly from its inception. They evidently can’t satisfy enough of the above noted needs in order survive financially — meaning they don’t seem to draw many fans, or attract much from outside sources to make their game viable from a business perspective. Why is that so? I don’t have the answer, although I’ll suggest that it’s buried somewhere within the way their style of play appeals to — or doesn’t appeal to — the masses.