skip navigation

Fighting

Situation 1

What guidelines should a Referee follow in deciding to assess a major plus game misconduct penalty for roughing versus fighting?

The Referee has a great variety of penalties to call to differentiate various degrees of participation in an altercation. Rule References 615(a) and 640(a).

However, a major plus game misconduct penalty for roughing can only be assessed for recklessly endangering an opponent by body checking. When a player has clearly thrown a punch or engages in actions that would be deemed to be fighting, the proper penalties must be assessed under the fighting rule.

The Referee should not attempt to manipulate the rulebook as there are progressive suspension rules for specific infractions that are tracked and enforced. Regardless of a Referee’s personal opinion about a rule, they are expected to apply the rules within their spirit and intent.

Failure to do so results in the compromised integrity of the game and a loss of credibility for the officials.

Situation 2

A player becomes involved in several altercations during the same stoppage of play. Can he be assessed more than one game misconduct penalty?

Yes. Rule Reference 615.

Provided the player has violated different sections of the rule that calls for the assessment of a game misconduct penalty, multiple game misconducts should be assessed.

The player would also be subject to Supplementary Discipline based on the game report filed by the officials.

Situation 3

The Linesman is trying to stop a fight between two players, but before he can break it up, one player bites the other on the finger. Should the Referee assess both the match penalty (Attempt to Injure) and major plus game misconduct for fighting to the offending player?

Yes. Rule References 615(a) and 602(a).

Both serious infractions must be assessed. A general rule during an altercation is to only assess the more severe infractions, but this applies when the lesser infractions are minor in nature (i.e. holding). However, in every instance where serious injury potential actions are committed, the appropriate penalties must be assessed for each.

Situation 4

A player becomes involved in a fight and is subsequently assessed a major and a game misconduct penalty for his involvement. He leaves the ice surface and proceeds to the dressing room. Later in the same game another fight occurs and the player who had previously been ejected returns to the ice surface to enter into the fight. What penalty should be assessed to that player for re-entering the game?

A game misconduct or match penalty shall be assessed, depending on the circumstances. Rule References 615(a and b), 601(d.4 & e.2).

Had play resumed prior to the player re-entering the ice surface, a match penalty shall be assessed. Conversely, if play had not resumed and the player re-entered the ice surface after being escorted off the ice and the door being closed behind him, an additional game misconduct penalty shall be assessed.

Situation 5

May a fighting penalty be called on a player who, with his gloves on, punches an opponent?

Yes. Rule References 615(Note).

Fighting may be called even though the gloves are still on the player's hands.

Situation 6

Two players on the same team become involved in a fight with each other during a game. What penalties, if any, shall be assessed?

If the fight occurs on the ice, both players shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty and the offending team shall be assessed a bench minor penalty for Delaying the Game. If the fight occurs off the ice, both players shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty. Rule References 615(a & b) and 610(h).

It is not feasible to assess the two players each a major and a game misconduct penalty, because the team would have to play short-handed by two players for five minutes. Likewise, a “first to intervene” penalty would not apply to a player on the same team who attempts to break up the fight.

Situation 7

During the course of an altercation, a player involved elbows the opposing combatant. Should the Referee assess the minor penalty for Elbowing in addition to the major and game misconduct for fighting?

No. Rule References 615(a).

If during the course of the fight one player held or elbowed the other, a penalty for holding or elbowing should not be added to the penalty for fighting.

However, should the holding or elbowing be the infraction that precipitated the fight, one offense leading to the other, then both offenses must be penalized.

Situation 8

What penalty or penalties are imposed upon a Coach who becomes involved in a fight with a player on the ice?

A match penalty. Rule References 615(a) and 602(a).

Situation 9

During a stoppage of play, two players look at each other and decide to fight. Prior to engaging in the fight, both players remove their helmets and start throwing punches. What penalties are assessed?

A match penalty for removing their helmet plus a major plus game misconduct for fighting to each player. Rule Reference 615(a and c).

A match penalty must be assessed to any player who deliberately removes his, or their opponent’s, helmet prior to the start of or during an altercation.

Naturally, the Linesmen should also make every effort to separate the players prior to the altercation in order to avoid this dangerous situation.

Situation 10

A goalkeeper leaves the vicinity of his goal crease and is the first player to intervene in an altercation. What penalties must be assessed?

A minor penalty for leaving the crease, plus a game misconduct for being the first to intervene in an altercation, plus any other penalty he may receive. Rule References 615(a, d & e).

Situation 11

Do the On-Ice Officials have a responsibility to intervene into an altercation that occurs off the playing surface?

Unless the altercation occurs on or near the playing surface (including the players’ and penalty benches), the On-Ice Officials do not have a responsibility to intervene. Rule Reference 615(b).

When an altercation occurs in the walkway that leads to the dressing rooms or in a similar area, the Officials must observe the incident from the ice, if possible, but are not to intervene. Intervention by the Officials in an off-ice environment provides too much of an opportunity for the Officials to become involved with the spectators, coaches, etc.

Situation 12

Opposing players are involved in an altercation and their helmet(s) come off during the altercation. It cannot be determined how the player’s helmets came off. Does this constitute a rule violation?

Yes. Rule Reference 615(c).

All players are responsible for properly wearing their helmet and facemask at all times. If a player participates in an altercation without their helmet properly worn then they should be assessed a game misconduct penalty along with any other penalties they may have incurred as a result of the altercation.

Situation 13

Two players are involved in an altercation and during the altercation one player reaches over and deliberately removes the helmet/facemask of the opponent. What penalty is assessed?

A match penalty (for ALL age classifications). Rule Reference 615(c).

A match penalty must be assessed to any player who deliberately removes their own, or their opponent’s helmet prior to or during an altercation.

The Linesmen should be prepared to step in and separate the players as soon as any helmet/facemask has been removed in order to protect the players from serious injury.

Situation 14

During play, opposing players are battling for position and their actions escalate to be considered an altercation. When play is stopped, both players remove their own helmets with the clear intention of fighting. What penalties, if any, should be assessed?

Match Penalty to each player. Rule Reference 615(c).

Once it has been determined that an altercation (see Glossary) has occurred, anytime a player involved in that altercation deliberately removes their own helmet, a match penalty must be assessed to that player in addition to any other penalties being assessed as a result of that altercation. Fighting penalties do not have to be assessed when applying Rule 615(c). In all instances where a helmet has been removed, the Linesman should work quickly to separate the players and minimize the continuation of the altercation.

Situation 15

During an altercation, Player A deliberately targets the helmet, or head area, of the opposing player who is properly wearing his helmet. As a direct result of the actions of Player A, the opposing player’s helmet comes off. What penalties are assessed to either player?

A match penalty is assessed to Player A. Rule Reference 615(c).

The helmet being removed during the altercation is the result of a deliberate action by Player A. In this instance, the opposing player is wearing his helmet and chin strap in the proper manner and the only way the helmet is removed is a direct result of the actions of Player A. The player whose helmet comes off should not be penalized under this rule since his/her helmet was being properly worn and the helmet coming off was not a result of his actions.

Situation 16

Opposing players are involved in an altercation. Player A’s helmet chin strap is not properly fastened and his helmet comes off of his head during the normal course of the altercation. The Referee determines that the helmet was not removed as a direct result of any deliberate action committed by the opposing player. What penalties, if any, should be assessed?

A game misconduct penalty to Player A. Rule Reference 615(c).

All players are responsible for properly wearing their helmet and facemask at all times. If a player participates in an altercation without their helmet properly worn then they should be assessed a game misconduct penalty along with any other penalties they may have incurred as a result of the altercation.

Situation 17

Opposing players are involved in an altercation. Player B removes his own helmet and proceeds to continue the altercation. Player A’s helmet chin strap is not properly fastened and his helmet comes off of his head during the normal course of the altercation. The Referee determines that A’s helmet was not removed as a direct result of any deliberate action committed by the opposing player. What penalties, if any, should be assessed?

A match penalty plus game misconduct penalty is assessed to Player B and game misconduct to Player A. Rule Reference 615(c).

The match penalty is assessed to Player B for deliberately removing his own helmet. He also receives a game misconduct penalty (which carries a two game suspension) for his actions which caused his opponent’s helmet to be removed. The game misconduct penalty (one game suspension) is assessed to Player A because he was not properly wearing his helmet and it came off during the altercation. Both penalties are assessed in addition to any other penalties incurred during the altercation.

Situation 18

Player A gets involved in an altercation and removes his own helmet. He then deliberately removes his opponent’s helmet. What penalties should be assessed?

Two match penalties are assessed to Player A. Rule Reference 615(c).

In this instance, one match penalty is assessed for removing his own helmet and a second match penalty is assessed for removing the opponent’s helmet. For the purpose of this rule, these actions are considered two separate actions that each call for a match penalty to be assessed.

Note 1: If more than one Match penalty is assessed to the same player or coach, the hearing period of 30 days (as noted in Rule 405c) remains at 30 days and is not extended beyond that period of time regardless of the number of Match penalties assessed.

Note 2: The Referee is provided some latitude in the penalties he may impose under Rule 615(c). This is done intentionally to enable him to differentiate between the obvious degrees of responsibility of the participants for either deliberately removing their own (or opponent’s) helmet and/or improper wearing of their helmets. In either instance, USA Hockey strongly discourages fighting and the safety of the players must be the first priority in enforcing these rules to prevent serious injury. The onus is on the player to properly wear all protective equipment in the manner it was intended and to not commit any actions that compromises the safety of their opponent

Situation 19

What guideline should be used when determining if a chin strap is being properly worn?

If the space between the player’s lower jaw and the chin strap allows for two or more of the player’s fingers to be inserted into that space, then the chin strap is not being properly worn. Rule References 615(c) and 304(c).

Situation 20

Player A (Youth) is assessed a major penalty plus a game misconduct for fighting (Rule 615a). They are also assessed a match penalty for removing their helmet during that altercation (Rule 615c). Should Player A also be assessed a game misconduct under Rule 403b (Major Penalties/Two Majors in a Game)?

No. Match penalties should not be used to satisfy Rule 403b (Major Penalties/Two Majors in a Game). Rule References 403(b), 405(a) and 615(c).

NOTE APPLYING TO SITUATIONS 14-20

All officials should remember that an altercation does not need to be considered a fight for Rule 615(c) to be applied. This rule would apply in any altercation where at least one player will receive a penalty (see Altercation in USA Hockey Rulebook Glossary).

Further, with proper execution of judgment and excellent hustle to separate players after the whistle, these types of situations can be prevented by the officials. That being stated, all players are responsible for their actions and will be held accountable for wearing all mandatory equipment properly and avoiding altercations before, during, and after the game.

Situation 21

What constitutes an altercation?

Any physical interaction between two or more opposing players where at least one penalty assessed. Rule References 615(c, d & e) and Glossary.

The Referee has wide latitude in determining penalties to be assessed during an altercation. If the Referee has deemed the physical interaction has escalated to the point where penalties are assessed, those rules that pertain to behavior during an altercation must kick in and those penalties assessed appropriately.

Situation 22

Can there be more than one “first to intervene” during the same altercation?

Yes, only in the instance in which players of opposing teams enter the altercation at exactly the same time. Rule Reference 615(d).

The game misconduct penalty(s) shall apply only to the “first” player to intervene in an altercation then in progress.

Situation 23

What would happen to a player who is the first to intervene in any altercation which is separate from the original altercation then in progress?

A game misconduct penalty shall be assessed. Rule Reference 615(d).

The game misconduct penalty shall apply to only the first player to intervene in an altercation. Thus, if there are two separate altercations occurring during the same stoppage, and a different player is the first to intervene in any altercation, they shall both be penalized under this rule.

Situation 24

A player is the first to enter an altercation, acting only as a peacemaker. Shall he be subject to the rules that govern the first to intervene?

Yes. Rule Reference 615(d).

Regardless of the reason, the first player to enter any altercation shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty.

Situation 25

During the course of an altercation, a third player enters the altercation and continues fighting with the opposing player. Should the Referee assess the game misconduct for being the first to intervene in the altercation, or the major and game misconduct penalty for fighting?

Both the major plus game misconduct for fighting and the game misconduct for first to intervene shall be assessed. Rule References 615(d & a).

The first to intervene penalty is assessed in addition to any other penalties assessed during the altercation.

Situation 26

An altercation occurs in the vicinity of the goal crease and the goalkeeper leaves his crease to remain out of the altercation. Should he be assessed a penalty for leaving his crease during an altercation?

No. Rule Reference 615(e).

The Referee should direct the goalkeeper to go to his players’ bench or at least away from the altercation. However, if the Referee does not give his permission and the goalkeeper gets involved in the altercation outside of the crease, the minor penalty must be assessed.

Situation 27

If a fight occurs in the immediate vicinity of the goal crease, should the goalkeeper be allowed to go to his own players’ bench?

Yes. Rule Reference 615(e).

In this instance, the referee should immediately instruct the goalkeeper to leave the crease area and his players’ bench would be a good alternative. If the altercation is occurring in an area other then the immediate vicinity of the crease, the goalkeeper would be expected to remain in the crease.

Situation 28

When an altercation occurs in the immediate vicinity of the players’ bench, where should the Referee direct the on-ice non- participants?

To their respective goal areas. Rule Reference 615(e).

The purpose of this rule is to get both teams separated from each other by a substantial distance. This practice eliminates subsequent altercations from breaking out.