Talk:Checking (ice hockey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

fixed a spelling mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.249.155 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I have never heard of "ice cut," and I would assert that this is not a type of check. It sounds to me like a tripping penalty. Is there a reference for this? I don't want to remove it just because I have never heard of it, but I would like to know where this term comes from, and why it belongs in an article about checking if it is indeed illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.204.8 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I played hockey for 8 years and am very familiar with the rule book, owning a recent copy. I've never seen an ice cut performed intentionally, or heard of the term. It is officially called tripping or clipping (depending whether the contact is made at the opponent's feet or knees, respectively), and is illegal. I don't think it belongs in this article anyway, it's kind of a pluto thing, if we keep this then there are a bunch of other irrelevant terms we would have to include. Ivandh (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

types of body check[edit]

Seems to me the term 'body check' is too broad. This really should be broken down into the different types. The hip-check is very specific, executed very differently than a shoulder check and with very different results. Specify how these types are legal while elbowing is not. Shoving with the gloves versus cross-checking, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.79.49 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I'm sorry but we have to "source" the use of an idiomatic phrase now? I would like to discuss these changes to the lead instead of simply being reverted all the time. Powers T 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia so we have to source things. I removed the phrase "in check" because it's not at all clear what it means, or if it really is related to the word checking in this context. None of this article is referenced at the moment - it would really benefit from a few good sources. --hippo43 (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
"in check" is an extremely common idiom and needs no more sourcing than the current statement does. And it explains the origin of the term. Powers T 13:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Because you say so? It's a common idiom in some countries, but is ambiguous and not immediately understood by everyone (Wikipedia is written for a general audience of English speakers). Better to reword it using clear language, and avoid using phrases in scare quotes. The entire article needs sourcing, including the current lead. Your opinion that the word 'checking' derives from 'in check' is worthless original research. Can you supply a source confirming that it is the origin of the term 'checking'? --hippo43 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all, they aren't scare quotes; they're perfectly appropriate when talking about a phrase qua phrase. Second of all, asking for a source that says "checking" is derived from "in check" is like asking for a source that says "showboating" is derived from "showboats", or that "couch potato" derives from the "couch". The conclusion is both obvious and indisputable. Powers T 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In the article, it's not talking about the phrase, it's using the phrase in a sentence. Why not simply "Checking is a technique blah blah blah for keeping an opponent in check"??
Asking for a source for the derivation of a term is totally appropriate, according to Wikipedia policy and common sense. This is disputable - I am disputing it. You may be right, but if it's as obvious as you believe, it should be easy to find a source to confirm it. If you can't provide one, it can't go in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's plain language. We don't need to source simple uses of descriptive language. Why aren't you asking for a source that proves the term is used in ice hockey, or for a source that says it's a defensive technique rather than an offensive one? Powers T 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
We need to source any material that is challenged. This has been challenged. I'm not challenging that checking is a defensive technique used in ice hockey, but if someone does, it would need a source. As a whole, the article needs some sources, because at the moment it has none, and reads like a personal view of the subject.
While any challenged material needs to be sourced, because this phrase is so similar to the article title it is implied (and you have asserted) that one phrase is derived from the other, so we need to be particularly careful to get it right. You claim it is obvious that "checking" is derived from "in check", but you have offered no evidence for it. It could be the case that the phrases are not related, or that "in check" is derived from "checking".
In any case, perhaps you are taking this too personally - you are arguing pretty hard for such a trivial matter. The lead as it stands is perfectly clear and accurate - why are you so attached to this particular phrase? Maybe give it some thought? --hippo43 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Because right now the article doesn't explain the origin of the term, and I think it's absurd to require sourcing a perfectly normal use of the English language. Powers T 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You are making two separate points. You're right, it is not necessary to source normal use of the English language, at least when it's not challenged. However, when you are making an assertion - that the phrase "in check" is the origin of the term - you need to be able to verify that assertion. So far, you haven't been able to do so. If you can supply a reliable source confirming that "in check" is the origin of the verb "to check" (and not, for example, vice versa), I won't have a problem with it. So far, I haven't been able to find such a source. --hippo43 (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's start over. If the sentence said "Checking is a type of defensive technique designed to keep an opponent from acting freely," does that require a source? Powers T 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should find a source for the definition of the term at least - the article has no sources at all! I'm not sure "designed to keep an opponent from acting freely" is the best wording to use - I don't think it really defines poke-checking or cross-checking, for example. The article goes on to explain each type of checking, so I don't think we need to be too specific in the lead. A couple of good sources would clear all this up. --hippo43 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques in which a player uses their body or stick" doesn't require a source? Powers T 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs a source. However, it is less contentious and is consistent with the rest of the article. Is there anything in "Checking in ice hockey is any one of a number of defensive techniques in which a player uses their body or stick" that you think is incorrect? --hippo43 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's incomplete, implying that any use of the body or stick is a defensive technique and therefore "checking". Powers T 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)