skip navigation

Standard of Play Casebook

The following interpretations are specific to USA Hockey’s Standard of Play Initiative. Many of these situations may apply to more than one rule reference. Please refer to the standard of play language found in the Preface and those rules pertaining to the standard of play for specific rules language and additional information.

Situation One

The first principle of the Standard of Play is “the use of the stick will be limited to only playing the puck.” Does this mean that any time a player uses their stick to contact the opponent, a penalty must be called?

No. Even though the principle encourages players to only play the puck with the stick, an actual rule must still have been violated in order for a penalty to be assessed. There may be instances where the stick may contact the opponent’s body or stick, but no competitive advantage had been gained by an act that is in violation of the rules.

However, when delivering a body check, the purpose of the body check must be to gain possession of the puck and therefore the stick must be below the knees. When a body check is delivered with the stick above the knees, Rule 640(d) has been violated and a penalty should be assessed.

It is important to recognize that, in essence, stick to lower stick contact that prevents the opponent from playing the puck could be considered an effort to play the puck.

Situation Two

Can a player lift the opponent’s stick without being penalized under the Standard of Play guidelines?

Yes. A player may lift the opponent’s stick at anytime provided they do not impede their progress. This is most often done in an effort to prevent the opponent from playing the puck and is considered a good defensive play.

Situation Three

Just prior to the puck being received by an attacking player, the defensive player chops down on top of the stick and prevents him from being able to play the puck. Should this be penalized under the Standard of Play guidelines? Does it make any difference as to the angle of the stick blade when done?

The use of the stick to check an opponent’s stick, or press the opponent’s stick to the ice or the boards, is a good defensive play as long as it is done on the lower portion of the stick shaft and the intended purpose is to dislodge the puck or prevent the opponent from playing the puck. The angle of the stick blade (inverted or parallel to the ice), would not make a difference in this determination.

However, anytime this action is done higher up on the stick or clearly impedes the opponent with no reasonable effort to play the puck, a penalty for slashing, holding or hooking should be called.

Situation Four

What degree of force is necessary for either a hooking or slashing penalty to be assessed under the Standard of Play guidelines?

For hooking, any use of the stick against an opponent’s body that allows the player to gain a positional advantage should be penalized. Examples include a tug or pull that allows space between the opponents to be diminished, impeding the opponent’s progress or causes a loss of balance or a subtle push or tug on the hand/arm that prevents the opponent from being able to pass or shoot the puck with normal force.

In the case of slashing, any slashing motion that makes contact with the hands, arms or body of the opponent must be penalized. In addition, any hard slashes to the upper portion of the stick (just below the hands of the opponent), with no attempt to legally play the puck, shall also be penalized.

Situation Five

I am a defensive player that is responsible for patrolling the front of my goal. What am I allowed and not allowed to do in playing the attacking player before the puck arrives?

Establishing a favorable body position is probably the key and this may involve considerable body contact, especially when the attacking player may be trying to establish the same advantageous body position. To do so, you can use size, strength and balance to lean on your opponent and put yourself in better position. The stick, or forearm, can also be used to steer the opponent as long as the arm(s) are not extended. Finally, a stick lift or stick press is a good defensive play when the puck is in the vicinity.

What you can’t do is fairly clear. You cannot use a free arm to grab onto or impede your opponent. You cannot use the stick or arm(s) in an extended manner that “pushes off” the opponent and creates space between you. And, you cannot place your stick in an area that impedes the opponent’s ability to move in a desired direction.

Situation Six

Is it acceptable for a player to take one hand off of the stick and use it as a shield to maintain space between the two players?

A player who is in possession and control of the puck is allowed to use a free hand to maintain body position that they legally established. An example of this is when two players are skating shoulder to shoulder, or the defensive player is slightly behind, and the player with the puck uses the free arm to fend off the opponent and maintain their body position. Naturally, though, if they grab the stick, sweater or arm of the opponent, or use the free arm to push off and create space, a penalty should be assessed.

Situation Seven

Is it acceptable for a player to take one hand off the stick and use it to steer an opponent when battling in the corner or in front of the goal?

In regards to two players battling in the corner or in front of the goal, it is unrealistic to expect both players to keep both hands on the stick at all times. In this instance, it is legal for a player to take one hand off the stick when reaching for the puck and using the free arm to steer the opponent or maintain position. Where the line is crossed and the player should be penalized is when the free arm is used to impede the opponent, pushes off with enough force to knock the opponent off of the puck or create space. This is a situation where officials need to use good judgment and allow battling for the puck or body position to take place and be able to recognize when a player has gained a competitive advantage with an illegal tactic and penalize accordingly.

Situation Eight

Is there a difference in what is allowed in a Body Checking category versus a Competitive Contact category when it comes to competing for the puck and body position?

Competitive contact and body position are very important parts of both the body checking and competitive contact games. Although there will be some differences in the amount of force that may be allowed at the younger or lower levels, the same principle of establishing body position exists in both categories and the methods used are the same. The only exception is the use of a body check, which is illegal in the Competitive Contact category.

Situation Nine

Is a different standard applied to a player who is back checking the puck carrier versus a non-puck carrier?

Essentially, no. Anytime a player gains a competitive advantage by the use of an illegal tactic, it should be penalized. This is regardless as to whether the action takes place on the puck carrier or non-puck carrier. It also emphasizes the importance of officials maintaining their maximum field of vision at all times by being in the proper position.

Situation Ten

The attacking player chips the puck off the boards and is going to go around the defensive player. At what point can a body check, or any contact, still be legally initiated by the defending player?

The general rule of thumb is that a body check can be finished as long as the defending player is an arms length plus stick length away from the opponent when the puck was dumped and the check that is delivered is unavoidable – meaning it was in the process of being delivered when control of the puck was relinquished. It is not acceptable to skate one or two more strides after the puck is gone and then decide to deliver the check.

Contact may also be legal provided the defending player maintains their normal skating lane and reasonable foot speed. In this instance, the obligation is on the attacking player to go around the defender. However, if the defender initiates contact by stopping or changing their skating lane to cut off the opponent, an interference penalty would be the correct call.

Situation Eleven

What are some guidelines to be considered when assessing interference penalties to the centers during face-offs?

Whereas any illegal tactic must be penalized, we also must recognize that two players may be battling for the puck and the normal body position principles must be applied. As long as the two centers are attempting to play the puck, have established body position and are simply trying to maintain it, the battle should be allowed to continue. However, if one center intentionally plays the body of the opponent with no effort to play the puck, or impedes the opponent in any way other than maintaining proper body position, a penalty for interference would be warranted.

Situation Twelve

What are some guidelines to be considered when assessing interference penalties to players other than the centers during face-offs?

Any time the stick or arm is used to impede the opponent, it is pretty obvious that a penalty should be called. Where the inconsistency comes into play is the use of the body and not properly applying the body position principles. Once a player, defending or attacking, has established their space and is simply trying to occupy that space, they are doing so legally and the onus is on the opponent to try to move around them. Interference occurs when one of the players changes their established space for the sole purpose of impeding the opponent by setting a pick or a block that prevents the opponent from continuing on in their established skating lane or prevents them from occupying the space they are entitled to.

Situation Thirteen

My local assignor supported the Standard of Play Initiative early in the season, but as the season has gone on has suggested that we should back off some and let the players decide the game. This was especially true during league play and playoffs. What is USA Hockey’s philosophy on this?

First off, let’s make it perfectly clear that USA Hockey’s objective here is not to call penalties – it is to encourage players to play within the rules and not allow lesser skilled players/teams to gain a competitive advantage using illegal tactics. All officials should only call those infractions that are clear violations of the actual rules.

With that being said, the same standard and expectations of the players must be maintained throughout the course of the season. In many cases, the players do adjust to the expectations and fewer infractions are committed. But league or playoff games should not make any difference as to the penalty standard and players must be held accountable for playing within the rules and more skilled players allowed to play the game without unfair tactics used by the opponent.

The role of the official is to enforce the rules of the game and USA Hockey expects all officials to do the best they can every time they step on the ice, and regardless of the circumstances involved in the game.

Situation Fourteen

In a Competitive Contact category, two players are skating toward the puck with the clear intent of playing the puck. As they both arrive at the puck, a collision takes place and the bigger and stronger player knocks the opponent to the ice. Is this a penalty for body checking?

No, provided both players are focused on playing the puck, this would be considered to be incidental contact that should not be penalized.

However, if the one player were to drop their shoulder in order to make the contact with the opponent, their focus is no longer on the puck and instead became an effort to play the body. In this instance, a penalty for body checking shall be assessed.

Situation Fifteen

In a Competitive Contact category, a Team A player is skating up the ice along the side boards with the puck. The Team B player in pursuit has established an angle that allows them to close the gap along the boards and minimize the space the player with the puck has to go through. Contact between the players occurs and the Team A player is knocked into the boards and loses possession of the puck. Should a penalty for body checking be called?

No, provided the Team B player does not use any overt hip, shoulder or forearm action to make contact with the opponent and simply maintains their skating lane and focuses on closing the gap and gaining possession of the puck.

Situation Sixteen

How much competitive contact should be allowed at the younger levels of play?

Competitive body contact should be allowed in all instances provided it is done within the definition of competitive contact. Competitive contact is a hockey skill that needs to be developed and encouraged at all levels of play. Players should be allowed to compete and gain possession of the puck using their body to establish and maintain their position using legal methods.

At the same time, officials should be diligent in enforcing body checking in Competitive Contact categories any time a player shifts their focus away from playing the puck and instead intentionally plays the body with an overt hip, shoulder or forearm with no attempt to gain possession of the puck.

Situation Seventeen

What criteria should the Referee use when assessing a major plus game misconduct penalty for body checking in a Competitive Contact category?

Any time the player delivering the check clearly has no intention of playing the puck and instead intentionally plays the body of the opponent by delivering a hard body check, a major plus game misconduct penalty must be assessed.

Situation Eighteen

A player in a Body Checking category makes no effort to play the puck and instead drives the opponent into the boards with excessive force. Should this be penalized as boarding?

Yes. The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. By accelerating through the check and causing the opponent to be thrown dangerously into the boards, the focus of the check is to punish or intimidate the opponent and must be penalized under the Standard of Play for Body Checking.

Situation Nineteen

What degree of force is necessary in order to be considered to be thrown dangerously into the boards?

The onus is on the player delivering the check to not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent.

The purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck. Any time a player delivers a check for the purpose of intimidating or punishing the opponent, and therefore causes the opponent to be driven excessively into the boards (uses the boards to punish the opponent), a boarding penalty must be assessed.

The degree of force with which a checked player contacts the boards varies. A more practical question may be “was the check necessary and/or what was the vulnerability of the player being checked?” For example, a boarding penalty may be assessed when a player in a vulnerable or defenseless position is unnecessarily hit with sufficient force and thrown dangerously into the boards.

In contrast, a penalty may not be warranted when a player is hit much harder as an opponent clearly attempted to gain possession of the puck, but their preparedness for the hit causes them to go only mildly into the boards.

USA Hockey is not eliminating a good, hard and clean check. However, players must be aware of the situation when delivering a check and then held accountable for taking “liberties” and therefore recklessly endangering an opponent.

Situation Twenty

A player leaves his feet and jumps at the last second to deliver a body check. Would this be considered charging? 

Yes. Anytime a player jumps in the process of delivering a body check, a charging penalty must be called, even if the contact is still made by the trunk of the body to the trunk of the opponent. The jumping motion provides additional force that is not necessary to deliver a legal body check.

Situation Twenty-One

A player delivers a check without taking the two fast strides, but instead accelerates through the check and delivers just as much force as if they had taken two fast strides. Could this be considered charging?

Yes. By accelerating through the check and maximizing the force used, the player is no longer simply attempting to gain possession of the puck and instead is attempting to intimidate or punish the opponent. Under the Body Checking Standard of Play, this must be penalized under the charging rule.

Situation Twenty-Two

What criteria should the Referee use when assessing a major plus game misconduct penalty for head contact?

Any time the Referee deems the contact to the head area to be intentional or a reckless act, a major plus game misconduct penalty or match penalty must be assessed.

Intentional would be deemed to be when the player “targets” the head or neck area of the opponent when delivering a check.

A reckless act is when the actions of the player delivering the check clearly do not take into consideration the location on the body of the opponent where the contact is being made and uses excessive force in delivering the check to the head or neck area.

As with other dangerous actions, a major plus game misconduct or match penalty must be assessed if an opponent is recklessly endangered as a result of head contact.

Situation Twenty-Three

What is the USA Hockey interpretation of illegal body checking to a player who is no longer in control of the puck (late hit)?

Any avoidable check delivered to a player who is no longer in control of the puck. A player must be in control of the puck to be eligible to be body checked as the purpose of a body check is to gain possession of the puck.

A player is considered to be vulnerable or defenseless after they have released the puck and are no longer in control of the puck. An avoidable check (late hit) delivered to a player after they have released the puck must be penalized under this rule.

An avoidable check is when the player delivering the check has an opportunity to avoid contact once it is realized the opponent no longer has control of the puck. If the check is deemed unavoidable (in the process when the puck was released), the player delivering the check is still obligated to minimize the unavoidable contact and not continue to punish the opponent.

The concept of “finishing the check” is one that is meant to intimidate or punish the opponent and has no place in youth hockey. Provided this check is avoidable, it must be penalized in every instance.

Situation Twenty-Four

A player delivers a check to an opponent (Body Checking category) and initiates the contact with his hands to the chest of the opponent, extending the arms to push off when contact is made. Is this a legal body check?

No. By definition, a legal body check must be delivered with the trunk (hips to shoulders) of the body and to the trunk of the body of the opponent. When the contact is initiated with the hands and the arms extended to push off, the check is not delivered with the trunk and must be penalized as Roughing.

Situation Twenty-Five

There is a scramble around the goal and the goalkeeper covers the puck for a stoppage of play. A defensive player then “protects” his goalkeeper by pushing an attacking player – who has clearly stopped as a result of the whistle. The attacking player pushes back in retaliation. What penalties should be assessed?

In this instance, both players should be assessed minor penalties for roughing. This is one area where officials tend to be lax in their standard and needs to be tightened up.

Oftentimes, officials will only assess penalties after several warnings or after a player retaliates, in which case they go back and assess one minor penalty to each player, even though they had no intention of assessing the first penalty until the retaliation occurred. This approach discredits the officials and will only create more problems later in the game.

Under this Standard of Play, officials should enforce any unnecessary contact after the whistle with a strict penalty standard. When at all possible, the aggressor should be identified and assessed an additional minor penalty in order to hold them accountable for starting the altercation.