Rules Primer

Rule set: Written to NHL rules. Where IIHF, USA Hockey or typical rec-league rules differ in a way that changes how you play, it is flagged inline. Playing in Britain? The IIHF flags are yours — every level of UK hockey runs the IIHF book, amended locally; see UK and England Rules, and read "If you play in Britain" in the Overview before you take any NHL statement below as describing your game.

Hockey has more than one rule book

The NHL, the IIHF, USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA Hockey each publish their own playing rules, those books disagree with one another, and your country, your league and your age class decide which of them is yours. The same act can be ordinary play under one book and an ejection under another, so a rule you know from watching the NHL is evidence about the NHL's book and about no other. That is the idea the rest of this page rests on: every rule below is given with the book it comes from, and where the books part company that is said rather than smoothed over. ⚠️ It is also the one thing here you cannot work out on the ice — somebody has to tell you, and the time to ask is before you play. Core Principles works the idea through, with the worked example of who is allowed to body check you.

Key focus

Two questions before your first game. First, whether your classification lets you body check at all. ⚠️ Where it does not, even a textbook check is a penalty. USA Hockey bars it at 12 & under and every age below that, in all Girls'/Women's classifications and all non-check adult classifications; Hockey Canada's ban reaches U13 and below, female hockey and any Member-approved division; CARHA's adult book penalises intentional body contact in every game (49(a)); and in Britain, IHUK junior hockey is non-checking at U10 and U12, the women's NIHL throughout. ⚠️ Your age group does not settle it, and USA Hockey says so twice: a local governing body may bar checking in any classification above those, and any game against a no-check team is a no-check game for both sides. section 4's Body fouls has the rule numbers for the NHL, IIHF, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada books.

Second, which rulebook your league runs, because they disagree about what a high stick or an illegal hit costs you — and if you play anywhere in Britain the answer is the IIHF Rule Book, amended by the IHUK In-House Rules everywhere but the Elite League, which those rules never name and which runs its own EIHL Casebook on top of the IIHF book instead. Once you know which book is yours, section 10 compares them and the Overview's British note is the one to read first. Four habits then hold under the NHL, IIHF, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada books:

Never hit anyone's head or neck. The NHL writes no major for an illegal check to the head (Rule 48.3), but 48.5 can still reach a match penalty for a deliberate or attempted injury. The other three go further, and none of them asks whether you meant it: the IIHF book, which is Britain's, gives a major and an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment (48.3), and USA Hockey makes the same pair compulsory for head contact made "intentionally or carelessly" (620(b)).
Never finish a check into somebody's back, and never duck out of one. Checking from behind has no minor option under NHL and IIHF Rule 43.2. Never duck, whether or not your book penalises it: a chin tucked to your chest straightens the cervical spine, so a head-on hit into the boards or a goal post stops the head while the body keeps going, compressing the spine hard enough to fracture a vertebra — and USA Hockey's Heads Up Hockey guide says that injury "can occur at walking speed." Hockey Canada Rule 8.7 bans crouching to avoid a bodycheck in every division, and IIHF Rule 44.1 near the boards. A wide base with knees bent is not crouching to avoid a check — it is how you take one.
Drag your trail blade in contact with the blue line until the puck is in. Contact is onside under all four books — and under the PWHL's and CARHA's as well, which makes six. An airborne skate held wholly back over the neutral zone is onside only under the NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL: USA Hockey and Hockey Canada require contact, and CARHA does not answer it either way.
Get the puck itself past the centre red line before you send it away, which keeps a clear out of icing in all four books.

Keep your stick on the puck and off the player. Hooking, slashing and tripping are what a beaten player reaches for instead of skating, and each of them costs you at least a minor — two minutes a skater short (NHL Rule 16.1) — so the cheapest penalty-killing you will ever do is the stride you take instead. ⚠️ That price is not two minutes in British junior hockey: at U12 a minor runs three minutes, or four in a four-line game, and you serve it on your own line's shifts rather than on the clock. UK and England Rules carries that, the questions the U12 rules leave open, and the rest of the format.

Overview

Find out which rulebook governs periods, offside, icing and penalties in your league before your first game — the books disagree, and one difference can cost you the rest of the match.

Assume any ejection costs you more than tonight, and find out who reviews it before you need to. The route differs by book. USA Hockey suspends you for your team's next game on any game misconduct (Rule 404(b)), and a match penalty sits you out of every USA Hockey game and practice until the case "has been dealt with by the proper authorities" (Rule 405(c)); its Rule 410(a) lets that authority review an incident "regardless of whether the action was penalized by the Referee." The NHL counts by category: a second game misconduct in the same category within 41 regular-season games — a physical foul under Rule 23.6, a stick foul under Rule 23.5 — while its General Category takes a third and has no reset clock at all (Rule 23.3). Take a third major in one game and that ejection counts on it, because "Third major penalty in a game" is on the General Category's own list. Hockey Canada reports every major and every game misconduct onward to your Member or league for further action (Rules 4.4(a) and 4.8(a)), makes a game misconduct in the last ten minutes, in overtime or after the final whistle an automatic suspension of at least the next league or play-off game or seven days (4.8(c)), and on a match penalty keeps you out of every further game until the case is dealt with (4.10(a)). The IIHF's is supplementary discipline at the Proper Authorities' discretion, and it too reaches an offence "whether or not such offense has been penalized by the Referee(s)" (Rule 28.1) — the tariff itself sits in the IIHF Disciplinary Code, which the Rule Book does not reproduce. The counts that stack up across a game and a season are under When penalties add up.

A hit to the head is the rule to learn from the harshest book rather than the most watched one. The NHL is the outlier and it is the lenient one: Rule 48.3 says "There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule." ⚠️ That cap is 48.3's and not the offence's, though — NHL Rule 48.5 lets the referee, "at his discretion", assess a match penalty where the player "attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head", so what the NHL caps at a minor is the one that falls short of that — the book writes neither "reckless" nor "careless" anywhere. Everywhere else it can end your game with no attempt to injure at all. IIHF Rule 48 covers the head or neck, opens "There is no clean check to the head or neck", and reaches a major plus an automatic game misconduct — you are gone for the rest of the match — for reckless endangerment (48.3). USA Hockey Rule 620 allows a minor and a misconduct or a major and a game misconduct, and makes the harsher one compulsory for reckless endangerment — and equally for contact that is no more than careless, 620(b) reaching anyone who "intentionally or carelessly contacts an opponent in the head, face or neck". Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 opens "There is no type of legal contact to the head, face, or neck." If you play in Britain, the lenient version is not yours. That protection is not unconditional, though, and the exception is the one that should change how you skate: IIHF 48.1 also says a player who bodychecks an opponent "who is skating with the puck with their head down in the direction of the Player and does not use an upward motion or drive their body up into the opponent, shall not be penalized for an 'illegal check to the head'." The checker is still obliged not to hit your head, and the IIHF book attaches no penalty of its own to the player whose head was down. Hockey Canada writes a wider exception, in junior and senior divisions only, and on a different trigger — ducking to avoid a check rather than carrying the puck head down. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 7.7(a) provides that a player who "ducks to avoid a check" and is hit in the head area with "an otherwise legal check" draws no Head Contact penalty against the checker, and that the referee "may assess a penalty to the player who ducks to avoid a check" under Hockey Canada Rule 8.7 — Clipping. A minor under 8.7(a) is the floor there, not the ceiling: 8.7(b) makes a major plus a game misconduct mandatory if the duck injures the checker and allows one at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence even if nobody is hurt, and 8.7(c) makes a match penalty mandatory for attempting to injure as well as injuring deliberately — and 8.7's preamble states the prohibition flatly: "Players may not crouch down to avoid being bodychecked". That Hockey Canada interpretation "does not apply to a player who is in a vulnerable position as the result of a legitimate hockey play (e.g. shooting, making or receiving a pass, etc.)", and no equivalent exception was found in USA Hockey's Playing Rules or in Hockey Canada's rules for minor and female hockey. ⚠️ And the crouching prohibition is not only Hockey Canada's — the IIHF writes one too, in the British reader's own book. IIHF Rule 44.1 says a player "may not crouch down near the boards to avoid being bodychecked and as a result, causes an opponent to tumble over them" — narrower than Hockey Canada's flat prohibition, because it wants the boards and the checker going over you, but real: IIHF 44.2 is a minor on the degree of violence and IIHF 44.3 reaches a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment. Neither the NHL nor USA Hockey writes any crouching clause at all. Keep your head up anyway — and under Hockey Canada, ducking out of a check is the version that can put you in the box in any division, because Rule 8.7's prohibition on crouching to avoid a bodycheck carries no division scope; near the boards it can under the IIHF book too. Head up — chin off your chest — is not the same as standing tall into the hit. Take it on a wide base with the knees bent, and near the wall get your skates parallel to it and take the contact along your side — your forearm and hip meet the wall, your shoulder and hip turn toward the checker — never the point of your shoulder, never your back to the boards, and never ducking. Keep the whole shoulder off the wall too, if you can. Neither the shoulder tip nor the turned back is penalised in any book — and they are not guarding against the same injury. USA Hockey's flat prohibition on the tip gives a bare reason, "it can cause injury", and says nothing about your neck; turning your back hands the checker your spine and puts your head into the wall first. And under two of the four books that absence of a penalty cuts against you as well. A turn made deliberately to draw the contact is written out of checking from behind by the NHL and by the IIHF — the book you play under in Britain — at Rule 43.1 in each, so it buys you the hit and loses you the checking-from-behind call; the IIHF adds that "other penalties may still be assessed" where the NHL does not, and neither book says who those would fall on. Hockey Canada and USA Hockey write no such waiver at all and keep the onus on the checker — but a call does not get your head out of the wall. Either way the turn is the worse option, and section 4's Body fouls and Common Mistakes carry all four books' wording. Ducking is the one that is both penalised and dangerous — penalised under Hockey Canada, whose Rule 8.7 prohibition on crouching to avoid a check carries no division scope at all, and under the IIHF near the boards; dangerous because a chin tucked to your chest straightens the cervical spine, so a head-on hit into the wall stops the head while the body keeps going, compressing the spine hard enough to fracture a vertebra — an injury USA Hockey's Heads Up Hockey guide says "can occur at walking speed." (What is confined to junior and senior is the checker's amnesty, Interpretation 3 to 7.7(a).) See Body Contact and Battles for how to take one.

Checking from behind is the one hit with no small version. Three of the four books eject you at every tier they write, and the fourth — USA Hockey — ejects you too for a forceful check along the boards or a reckless one anywhere. A check on a player who cannot see it coming and cannot protect himself, with contact on the back of the body, has no minor option at all under the NHL (Rule 43.2: "There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind") or the IIHF (43.2: "This infraction is considered serious and dangerous, therefore there is no option to award a minor penalty") — it is a major plus an automatic game misconduct. Hockey Canada ejects you from its smallest version upward: Rule 7.5(a) is "a Minor penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty", and 7.5(e) makes that game misconduct compulsory for a minor and a major alike. ⚠️ That is a game misconduct, and Hockey Canada writes no plain misconduct here at all — 7.5(d) says "No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for a checking from behind infraction." Where the books do pair a minor with a plain misconduct it is a different rule and a different tier: Hockey Canada 7.7(a) does it for head contact in junior and senior divisions only, and below that 7.6(d) forbids it — "No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for a Head Contact infraction." How often either pair is assessed in play is not something the rulebooks state. USA Hockey is the only one of the four that lets you finish the game — Rule 608(a) permits a minor plus a misconduct — and even there 608(b) makes the major and game misconduct compulsory where the check "recklessly endangers an opponent, or causes them to go head first into the boards or goal frame, as a result of checking from behind." ⚠️ And USA Hockey's own Casebook takes that lighter option off the hit this section is about. Its Rule 608, Situation 1 requires the minor plus misconduct for an open-ice push on an opponent "skating ahead of them and not near the boards" and for "minimal body contact" making a "'pinch' against the boards", and requires the major plus a game misconduct or the match penalty — "In every instance where a player forcefully checks an opponent who is standing along the boards (back toward the middle of the ice)", and "In every instance where the player recklessly endangers the opponent from a check from behind, regardless of whether or not board contact is made." So what separates the four books here is the tier they start at, not what happens when you finish a check into somebody's back. Two of the four books put the onus on the checker in terms — USA Hockey Rule 608 and Hockey Canada's Rule 7.5; the NHL's Rule 43 and the IIHF's state no onus at all. But "he turned at the last second" is not a defence under any of them, because the waiver the NHL and the IIHF do write (Rule 43.1 in each) is for a deliberate turn to draw the contact, which is a different thing.

In recreational hockey the penalty to expect is a stick foul, and a stick foul is usually a conditioning failure in disguise. Hooking, slashing and tripping are what a beaten player does instead of skating. Stick on the puck, never on the player. (Both halves of that are coaching craft. Nobody has counted recreational-league calls, and the nearest counted call data belongs to a different league and points the other way. Computed from the NHL play-by-play feed rather than published — 400 games of 2024-25, 2,967 penalties, set out in Body Contact and Battles — seven infraction types were counted there and they account for 71.4% of all calls between them, the rest not broken out, so this ranks those seven one at a time and not the book or any group inside it: tripping leads at 16.6%, hooking is second at 12.1% and roughing, which is not a stick foul, is third at 12.0%. It will not tell you whether stick fouls outnumber everything else, because the leader of the seven will not sort — tripping sits in no book's stick-foul category, and the stick is only one of the six means NHL Rule 57.1 names. And the NHL is not your league.)

A first major can end your game, and that is true in both books. IIHF Rule 20.4 attaches an automatic game misconduct to a major for any infraction on its Reference Table 6 — twenty of them, and it requires no injury for any. That table number is the 2025/26 book's: the 2026/27 edition merges its Tables 5, 6 and 7 into a single Table 5 that still carries all twenty. The NHL's Table 5 is neither the same list nor unconditional, and its residual trigger is a third major in a game where the IIHF's is a second — or a second misconduct, which the NHL book does not have at all.

Offside and icing are worth learning as constraints rather than as definitions, because between them they decide where you are allowed to be and where you can safely send the puck. Under NHL and IIHF rules an icing costs the offending team three things at once: the restart happens in their own end, they may not substitute tired players, and they may not take a timeout. USA Hockey imposes neither of the last two. The mechanics differ book to book in ways that change the act itself — what works in all four is getting the puck itself past the centre red line, on your stick, before you send it away.

Every rule below is quoted by rule number from the NHL, IIHF, USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and IHUK In-House rulebooks listed in the sources. Where they disagree, that is said rather than smoothed over.

If you play in Britain, the IIHF column is yours

This document is written to NHL rules, and the rule-set flags in it are mostly written for a North American reader. If you play anywhere in Britain, the flag to follow is the IIHF one.

Every level of the game here runs on the IIHF Official Rule Book: the Elite Ice Hockey League, the NIHL, the recreational and junior game across the Home Countries, university hockey, and the GB national teams. The In-House Rules say so in terms for every one of those but the Elite League, which they never name — the Elite League entry rests on the EIHL Casebook instead, which says so itself: “For all rules not mentioned in the EIHL Casebook, the official 2026 - 2027 IIHF Rulebook and IIHF Situation Handbook will serve as the official ruling.” That Casebook is read here where it is cited — for equipment, the physical fouls, and the Elite League cells of the comparison table in section 10 — and not across the rest of this document. The In-House Rules' 2025-26 edition had England Ice Hockey, the Scottish Ice Hockey Association and the British Universities Ice Hockey Association "adopt the IIHF Official Rule Book 2025–2026 (Version 1.1, published July 2025) as the foundation for the rules of the game to be applied in England and Scotland." Their 2026-27 edition, published 25 July 2026, restates that for a reorganised governing body: Ice Hockey UK (IHUK) and the BUIHA "adopt the latest IIHF Official Rule Book (Version 1.1, published July 2025) as the foundation for the rules of the game to be applied in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the Home Countries)" — the coverage is wider, and EIH and SIH policies are now IHUK's.

Do not read that sentence as telling you which IIHF edition you are on, because the same document contradicts it. Its cover page reads "to be read and applied in conjunction with the Current IIHF Rule Book", where the 2025-26 cover named "the 2025–26 IIHF Rule Book" — but the Introduction quoted above still names Version 1.1 of July 2025, which is the 2025/26 book; the IIHF's 2026/27 book gives its own version as 1.0, June 2026. So the In-House Rules are evidence of what they amend, not evidence of which IIHF edition sits underneath them. Where an edition difference matters in this document it is flagged at the point of use. The two IIHF editions diverge sharply in three places that touch these pages — the face-off rules, the high-sticking definition, and the numbering of Rule 46 and of the Appendix tables — and only the first of the three is settled for Britain by the In-House Rules' own text rather than by resolving this question. ⚠️ In the Elite League the question does not arise, because the Casebook answers it rather than the In-House Rules: its Preamble makes “the official 2026 - 2027 IIHF Rulebook and IIHF Situation Handbook” the ruling for everything the Casebook does not itself write, so an Elite League player is on the 2026/27 edition. Everywhere else in Britain the base is the In-House Rules, which name both books, so if your league's answer matters to you, ask it.

On top of that base sits one thin layer of local amendment: the In-House Rules, which the 2026-27 edition applies across all four Home Countries and university hockey, or the EIHL Casebook in the Elite League, whose equipment provisions are set out in Equipment and whose physical-foul ones in Body Contact and Battles. The In-House Rules are not a rulebook and say so — "This document is to be read alongside the IIHF Rule Book and is not intended to serve as a standalone rule book" — but they are the "overriding interpretation of how the IIHF Rule Book is to be applied domestically", so where they amend the IIHF book, they win.

What that changes about reading this document. Wherever the text below says "under IIHF rules", it is describing your game, not a footnote to somebody else's. Wherever it flags a USA Hockey or Hockey Canada divergence, that flag is not yours. The comparison table in section 10 carries a Home Countries column for exactly this reason, and it is yours wherever in Britain you play except the Elite League, whose amendments are its own Casebook's rather than the In-House Rules': the In-House Rules govern "England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the Home Countries)" and university hockey, not England alone. Where that column reads "As IIHF", that is the answer and not an omission: it means the In-House Rules carry no amendment to that rule, so the IIHF cell beside it is your rule.

UK and England Rules has the full list of England Ice Hockey amendments. Read it before your first game — several of the amendments (neck protection, facial protection, rink size, junior age categories) change things this document does not cover. ⚠️ Read the junior age categories out of the current season's In-House Rules and nowhere else. Every band shifted by a full year between the 2025-26 and 2026-27 editions — Under 19 went from birth years 2007–2009 to 2008–2010, and each band below it moved with it — so a table copied from a previous season puts a player in the wrong category.

1. How a Game Is Structured

The teams on the ice

Each team plays five skaters and one goaltender at even strength. A skater is any outfield player — the three forwards (a centre and two wingers) and the two defencemen, sometimes called defenders or D. The goaltender, or goalie, is the player permitted to use special equipment and to catch and hold the puck.

An NHL roster for a game is 20 players — 18 skaters and 2 goalkeepers (NHL Rule 5.1). Rec teams are usually smaller; two lines of forwards, two pairs of defence and a goalie is a common minimum, and it makes for a very long night.

When a rule says "a player", does that include the goaltender?

Most of the rules below say "a player" and never mention the goalie, and you will sooner or later need to know whether one of them binds yours. Three of the four books answer that in their own text; USA Hockey does not answer it at all, and the difference is worth carrying into everything that follows.

The NHL and the IIHF give the same answer under the same rule number. NHL Rule 5.1 and IIHF Rule 5.1 carry the same sentence, the IIHF capitalising the term it is defining and the NHL not: "For the purposes of these playing rules, any reference to 'Player' shall refer to both skaters and goalkeepers. Any reference to 'goalkeeper' shall mean that the section of the rule is specific to goalkeepers." So a bare "player" takes in your goaltender, and a rule that names the goalkeeper is telling you it is theirs alone. That is also why the IIHF book says "skater" in places where the NHL says "player": Rule 5.1 splits "Player" into "skaters and goalkeepers", which leaves the IIHF a word for everybody who is not the goalie, and it uses it. Rule 67.5 is the two books side by side — the NHL's "If a player, when the goalkeeper has been replaced for an extra attacker, falls on the puck…" is the IIHF's "If a skater…", the rest of the sentence differing only in a pronoun, a comma and an article.

Hockey Canada arrives at the same place from its Glossary rather than from a rule. The entry reads "PLAYERS: The members of the team physically participating in the game. The goaltender is considered a player, except where explicitly stated because special rules or privileges apply to them." Silence covers your goaltender there too, and an exclusion has to be written down for it to exist.

USA Hockey is the book that publishes no provision of the kind, and that changes what its silences mean. Its definitions apparatus is Appendix V, the Glossary, and that has no entry for "player" and none for "skater" — it defines Goalkeeper, Substitute Goalkeeper, Temporary Goalkeeper, Possession of the Puck and Vulnerable or Defenseless, and runs straight from Physical Engagement to Possession of the Puck. What the book does instead is settle the question one rule at a time: "a player or goalkeeper" where it means both, "All players, including goalkeepers" through the equipment rules at 304(c), and "a player (except the goalkeeper)" at Rule 618(a) or "a player other than the goalkeeper" at Rule 614(a) where the goalie is out. So a bare "player" in that book is genuinely undetermined by the wording. (The Glossary was read here in full, and no equivalent interpretive provision was found anywhere else in the playing rules or in the Casebook, both of which were searched for one; the same search finds Rule 5.1 immediately in the NHL and IIHF books. That is a search result rather than a proof that none exists.)

How to use this. Under the NHL, the IIHF and Hockey Canada, read a bare "player" as covering your goaltender unless that rule carves them out. Under USA Hockey the wording will not settle it, so take the cautious reading of each: a prohibition binds your goalie until someone tells you otherwise, and a permission does not extend to them until someone tells you it does. The reading that costs you is always the one that assumes an exemption the book never granted.

Periods and the clock

A game is three periods of twenty minutes of actual play (NHL Rule 77.1; IIHF Rule 77.1; USA Hockey Rule 636(a) gives 20 minutes as the maximum period length). The clock is stop time — it runs only while the puck is in play, so a 20-minute period takes roughly 35–40 minutes of real time.

🇬🇧 ⚠️ Twenty minutes is the British adult answer and not the junior or women's one — the length is set by your competition's Rules of Competition rather than by the rule book, and the four IHUK Rules of Competition read for this document set different lengths. IHUK's National League Division 1 and 2 Rules of Competition prints "3 x 20 minute periods" for NIHL. The WNIHL Rules of Competition gives senior WNIHL the same "3 x 20 minute periods" against "3 x 15 minute periods" at WNIHL U16, and makes the senior figure compulsory in its own prose — "All WNIHL league games must be played over 3 x 20-minute periods", with 3 × 15 available only where a team applies to IHUK for permission "[i]n extraordinary circumstances". In the junior leagues the Junior Rules of Competition format table gives U14 "3 x 15-minute periods", and U16 and U19 "3 x 15 or 3 x 20-minute periods" — the home team confirming which before the season starts and then using "the same format all season (no changes once underway)". ⚠️ At U12, look it up rather than assume it, because the format table's "3 x 18-minute periods" is only half of the answer: Appendix D sets the length by how many lines you are running — "3-line format – three periods of 18 minutes (running clock)" against "4-line format – three periods of 20 minutes (running clock)" — and on a running clock the period takes about as long as the clock says rather than the 35–40 minutes above. Nor is U10 played on a full sheet, so the question does not arise there: "[a]ll Under 10 games must be played on a reduced area ice surface", cross ice or half ice, and the U10 regulations publish an ice-slot length rather than a period length. ⚠️ Those four documents reach only the leagues they are named for — NIHL Divisions 1 and 2, the WNIHL, the IHUK junior leagues and U10 — and nothing beyond them. They do not settle the EIHL, NIHL National, the PNIHL, BUIHA university hockey or Scottish domestic competition outside the IHUK junior structure. ⚠️ And "IHUK runs my league" is not the test — IHUK's own In-House Rules reach NIHL National, the SNL and BUIHA Varsity too, and none of these four Rules of Competition covers any of them. So read your own competition's Rules of Competition, and ask your league where you cannot find one. UK and England Rules has the British age categories and the U12 and U10 playing formats in full.

Intermissions between periods are 18 minutes in the NHL (Rule 77.2), 15 minutes at IIHF (Rule 77.2) and 15 minutes under USA Hockey (Rule 636(a)).

Teams change ends after every period (NHL Rule 86.3). This matters more than it sounds: in the second period your bench is at the far end from your defensive zone, which means the trip to the bench from a defensive-zone shift is the length of the ice. That is "the long change", and it is why being caught tired in your own end costs you more in the second period than in either of the others. See Game Management.

Rec-league variation: many recreational and beer leagues use shorter periods, running clock (the clock does not stop for whistles) except perhaps in the final minutes, and a hard curfew that ends the game whatever the clock says. USA Hockey formally accommodates short periods by pro-rating penalty times (Rule 402): a minor is 1:00 in periods of 12 minutes or less, 1:30 in periods of more than 12 but under 17 minutes, and 2:00 in periods of 17–20 minutes. Adult classifications always use 2:00. Majors, misconducts and match penalties scale too, but not on the same terms: Rule 402 says minors "shall be pro-rated", while the Notes to Rules 403, 404 and 405 say only that affiliates or governing bodies "are authorized to reduce" them, and all three exclude Adults. Where an affiliate does, a major is 3:00 in periods of 12 minutes or less, 4:00 in periods of more than 12 but under 17 minutes, and 5:00 in periods of 17–20 minutes; a match penalty's served time scales on the same three figures — the ejection does not, since 405(a) removes the player for the balance of the game either way; a misconduct is 6:00, then 8:00, then 10:00 across those same period lengths. Even the minor schedule is not fixed, though — Rule 402's own Note lets affiliates "grant exceptions to the pro-rated schedule for minor penalties for the 14 & under age classification and older." Check your own league's sheet — this is the single most common thing players get wrong when they move between leagues.

Stoppages

Play stops for: a goal, a penalty, offside, icing, the puck leaving the playing surface, the goalie freezing the puck, a hand pass, a puck played above shoulder height, an injury, a displaced net, or an official's judgement that the puck is unplayable or out of sight. Every stoppage restarts with a faceoff at one of nine marked spots (see section 8).

Practically: the whistle is not the end of your shift's responsibility. Two things carry on after it — the scrum around the net, and the faceoff. Both are places where undisciplined players hand over penalties and possession. ⚠️ And a third thing carries on after it: the puck stops being yours to send anywhere. Under the NHL and the IIHF, firing it out of the rink once the whistle has gone is a two-minute minor and nothing worse — Rule 63.2(ii) reaches a player who "deliberately shoots or bats … the puck outside the playing area (from anywhere on the ice surface) during the play or after a stoppage of play", and NHL Rule 63.9 scopes every delay-of-game infraction to "a penalty (minor, bench minor, penalty shot or awarded goal)" — there is no misconduct rung in either book. In the two amateur books the minor is the bottom of a ladder. USA Hockey puts a misconduct on a player who "[s]hoots or bats the puck outside of the playing area during a stoppage of play" (Rule 601(c)(10)), a game misconduct on that same act "when done in protest of an official's decision" (601(d)(7)) or on a puck shot "in the general direction of an on-ice official, or in the direction of a spectator during a stoppage of play" (601(d)(9)), and a match penalty where a player "shoots the puck directly at an official or spectator in a manner that recklessly endangers the official or spectator" (the Note to 601(d)). Hockey Canada names the act in its own words: "Shooting the puck out of the playing area, after the whistle" is unsportsmanlike conduct under Rule 11.1, preamble item (v) — a Minor or Bench Minor under 11.1(a), and a Misconduct under 11.1(d)(i) for a player who persists after one. ⚠️ Do not read that as one free minor: Note 1 to 11.1(d) provides that "A Referee is not required to assess a Minor penalty under this rule before assessing a Misconduct penalty, but may assess either penalty initially." So let the linesperson pick it up, and never send it toward an official or the crowd. The tiers and the one question USA Hockey leaves open are set out under §Other infractions.

Changing on the fly

You may change players at any time during play (NHL Rule 74.1). The condition is that the player leaving the ice must be within five feet of the bench and out of the play before the substitute steps on.

That five feet is two books' number, not four. IIHF Rule 74.1 writes the identical provision in metric — "within 1.50m of their Players' bench and out of the play before the change is made" — which is five feet to within an inch, so it is the same rule. Hockey Canada Rule 6.1(a) gives you twice the room: the player leaving "will be at the Players' Bench (within 3.05m (10 ft.)) and out of play before any change is made", penalised under Rule 10.7(a). CARHA Rule 19(b) writes the same 10 ft. And USA Hockey Rule 204(b) writes no distance at all — the retiring player "shall always be at the players' bench and out of the play before any change is made", and there is nothing to measure. ⚠️ If you play under an American or Canadian book, the five-foot figure is not yours.

The exact mechanics matter because they define the penalty:

A substitute is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice.
If either player — the one coming on or the one going off — plays the puck, checks an opponent, or makes physical contact with an opponent while both are on the ice, that is too many men.
If the retiring player is accidentally struck by the puck during the change, no penalty and no stoppage.
If a player on the bench plays the puck or interferes with an opponent while still on the bench, that is interference (Rule 56), not too many men.
You must leave via the bench, not any other exit. Leaving via the gate to the dressing room and being replaced is a bench minor.

USA Hockey adds a third way to commit this offence, and none of the other four books compared here writes it. The two triggers above — playing the puck, or contacting an opponent — are the NHL's whole list. Rule 204(b) adds "or causes their team to gain a competitive advantage", and the USA Hockey Casebook applies it at Rule 204 Situation 8 to a change where the retiring player is "in the vicinity of the players' bench", neither player touches the puck or an opponent, and the substitute turns a 2-on-1 against into a 2-on-2: "Yes." ⚠️ Read the Casebook's reason in full, though, because it runs on two limbs joined by and, not one: "The fact they are still both on the ice and Team A gained a territorial or positional advantage as a result of the change is considered to be a violation of the rule and should be penalized." ⚠️ Under that book, winning the odd-man rush while both players are still on the ice is the infraction — the advantage limb is not a free-standing one you can commit with a finished change, and 204(b)'s own sentence attaches its puck-play and contact triggers to the same moment, "while the retiring player is actually on the ice".

What this means for you: the change is a defensive act, not an administrative one. Change when your team has the puck in the offensive zone or in the neutral zone going forward — never when the puck is coming at you. If the puck turns over while you are halfway to the bench, finish the trip and get off; do not turn around and play the puck, because that is the actual infraction. Your teammate stepping on is the one who plays.

Long shifts are a rules problem as well as a fitness problem. A 90-second shift ends with you on the wrong side of the puck, and the temptation to reach with your stick instead of moving your feet is what produces hooking and tripping calls. Most rec-league penalties are conditioning penalties in disguise — coaching craft rather than a count, because nobody has counted recreational-league calls, and the one league that has been counted, the NHL, does not answer it either: that count ranks single infractions rather than stick fouls as a group, and the one it puts top, tripping, sits in no book's stick-foul category (Body Contact and Battles). See Conditioning and Recovery.

Too many men on the ice

Too many men is a bench minor — two minutes, served by any player the coach designates through the captain (NHL Rules 74.2, 17.1). It can be called by either the referees or the linespersons.

Two useful details:

If the offending team scores before the whistle goes for too many men, the goal is disallowed and the penalty is still assessed (Rule 74.2).
A player coming out of the penalty box who is being changed for must skate to within five feet of his own bench before the change happens (NHL Rule 74.3; IIHF Rule 74.3 is the same at 1.50 m). Sending a fresh body over the boards while the penalised player is still crossing the ice is too many men. ⚠️ The other two books word this one without a distance, and one of them prices it against you personally. USA Hockey Rule 204(c) requires the player to "proceed by way of the ice and be at their players' bench before any substitution can be made", and Hockey Canada Rule 6.1(b) the same — but Hockey Canada assesses "a Minor penalty under Rule 10.4 (a) – Leaving the Players' or Penalty Bench" rather than a bench minor, so it is your two minutes, not the bench's. ⚠️ And USA Hockey carves out adults. Rule 204(c)'s own exception covers "when a major or match penalty is imposed in Adult Classifications under Rule 403(d) or 405(a)" — adult teams are not required to put a substitute on the penalty bench for a major or match, so its Casebook, Rule 204 Situation 11, permits them to send a player straight from the players' bench when the penalty expires. Youth is the opposite: Situation 10 keeps the team short-handed until the penalised player has actually left the penalty bench by way of the ice, on pain of a bench minor.

Practically: count. The centre or the last defenceman back is usually the one who notices. If you step on and see six blue jerseys, get straight back off — the officials will usually allow the correction if nobody has played the puck.

Line changes at a stoppage

At a whistle, the visiting team puts its line-up on the ice first (up to five seconds), then the home team changes (up to eight seconds), and the referee lowers his hand to close the window (NHL Rule 82.2 sets out that four-step clock). That is the concrete value of home ice: the home coach gets last change and can therefore match his lines against yours.

But last change is not unconditional, and the exception lives in a different rule. Rule 82.1 — not 82.2 — grants the right in the first place, and grants it with a carve-out: "The home team may then make any desired substitution, except in cases following an icing, which does not result in the delay of the game." Later in the same rule, that exception is spelled out: "A team that is in violation of Rule 63.8 – Delaying the Game or Rule 81 – Icing shall not be permitted to make any player substitutions prior to the ensuing face-off."

Quoted in full, the clause is not ambiguous about whose icing. The two passages are the same bar — the second one names the team it falls on, "a team that is in violation of… Rule 81 – Icing" — and it pairs Rule 81 with Rule 63.8 (Delaying the Game), which is what the first paragraph's trailing "delay of the game" wording is pointing at. NHL Rule 81.4 then repeats the bar in the same words, with the same three exceptions (replacing a goalkeeper who had come off for an extra attacker, replacing an injured player, or a penalty that changes on-ice strength) — exceptions that only make sense for the team that iced it. If the carve-out froze both benches after any icing, the later paragraph and Rule 81.4 would have nothing left to do. So: ice the puck and you cannot change, home or away; after the visitors ice it, the home team changes normally and keeps last change. That is exactly why icing is expensive — you hand the other side fresh legs and the matchup. See Faceoffs and Game Management.

After an icing, the offending team may not change at all (Rule 82.1, Rule 81.4). More on that below.

And icing is not the only way to lose the change — Rule 63.8 is the other half of the clause quoted above, and it is the half nobody repeats. Under the NHL: "In the event that the goal post is displaced accidentally by a defending skater or goalkeeper causing a stoppage in play, the ensuing face-off shall be conducted at one of the end zone face-off spots in the defending zone. The offending team shall not be permitted to make any player substitutions prior to the face-off." The exceptions are the icing three — replacing a goalkeeper who had come off for an extra attacker, replacing an injured player, or a penalty that changes on-ice strength. IIHF Rule 63.8 is the same rule in the same words, writing "a defending Player" where the NHL writes "a defending skater or goalkeeper" — which is the same set of people, not a narrower one, because IIHF Rule 5.1 provides that "any reference to 'Player' shall refer to both skaters and goalkeepers", as set out at the top of this section. It reads identically in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions — so it is the British rule too. In both books the attacking team then chooses which of the two end-zone dots the draw is taken at. Rule 63.8 has a second limb as well — for a goalkeeper freezing a puck shot in from beyond the centre red line — and its exception list is one shorter than this one's. Section 7 covers that one.

So knocking your own net off does not buy your tired line a change. ⚠️ You get the whistle and you stay on the ice — with a defensive-zone draw at the dot the other team picked, no timeout available to you either (Rule 87.1, in the Timeouts list below), and a minor for delay of game on top if the referee judges you did it deliberately — that penalty is in section 4. And it is the defender's act that does this: where an attacking player displaces the net, NHL and IIHF Rule 63.4 let play run on while the defending side still has the puck, and put the draw where play was stopped, with no substitution bar at all. And the IIHF's Situation Handbook shuts the last hatch. Asked whether a commercial break can be taken at that stoppage and whether the defending team may change after it, Situation 82.6 answers: "The commercial break shall not be initiated according to Rule 87.2. The defending team is not allowed to change any players." (It is Situation 82.7 in the 2026/27 edition, in the same words.) Situation 63.32 restates the exception list as those three and no others.

The other two books part here. Hockey Canada writes the same consequence, but only in some categories. Rule 6.1(g) applies "In categories of U18 AAA, Junior and at the option of the Member in Senior", and there, "when the goal frame has been accidentally dislodged by any defending player, including the goaltender, causing a stoppage of play, this will result in a 'no-change' situation", with the defending team "subject to the same restrictions as outlined in Rule 6.7 (d)(i)" — the no-change-on-icing clause, whose three exceptions are the same three. That is exactly the scope of its icing bar, so at every level younger than U18 AAA, and in Senior unless your Member has adopted it, there is no bar at all. No counterpart to any of this was found in USA Hockey. Its Rule 610(d) stops play for a displaced goal frame and penalises a deliberate one, Rule 612 writes no faceoff location for it, and neither Rule 204 nor the Casebook situations on Rules 610 and 617 tie a substitution consequence to it — searched by rule number and by concept across both volumes, which is a limit of that search rather than proof none exists. Under USA Hockey the ordinary change window is the only thing stopping you, and that closes at every stoppage anyway.

Overtime

NHL regular season (Rule 84.1, 84.4): a five-minute, sudden-death, 3-on-3 overtime, then a shootout if still tied. The shootout is three shooters a side, then sudden death; no player may shoot twice until everyone eligible has shot. A team that loses in overtime or the shootout still keeps the single point it earned by being tied after 60 minutes.

Three-on-three is a different sport. There is enormous open ice, the value of possession is extreme, and the single worst thing you can do is force a low-percentage play that gives the puck away — a turnover in 3-on-3 is very often a goal against within seconds. Note also that pulling the goalie in regular-season overtime forfeits the guaranteed point if you lose while he is off (Rule 84.2), and once he is off he cannot return on the fly — he must wait for a stoppage, or it is a bench minor.

NHL playoffs (Rule 84.5): full 20-minute sudden-death periods at even strength, with a 15-minute intermission before the first and ends changed at the start of each overtime period, repeated until somebody scores. No shootout, no 3-on-3. Note: 84.5 states those periods, that one intermission and the change of ends, and carries no on-ice-strength provision at all — so the even strength is an inference from the rule's silence rather than something it states. Rule 34.3 confirms that the later intermissions happen — it says each one "will be completed in a normal manner" — but states no length for them, and "normal" read against Rules 34.2 and 77.2 points at eighteen minutes rather than the fifteen 84.5 sets for the first. No figure is given here for the later ones.

Overtime with penalties (Rule 84.3) is fiddly but worth knowing the shape of: teams never drop below three skaters, so a power play in 3-on-3 overtime is played 4-on-3, and a two-man advantage is played 5-on-3 with the penalised team at three. Once strength evens out, the count is corrected to 3-on-3 at the next stoppage.

IIHF (Rule 84.1, 84.4–84.6): preliminary-round games get a five-minute 3-on-3 overtime then a five-shooter shootout. Playoff, relegation-round, classification-round and bronze-medal games get up to ten minutes of 3-on-3 then a shootout (84.5 names all four). The gold-medal game of a top-category championship goes to unlimited sudden-death 3-on-3 periods with 15-minute intermissions until somebody scores. Note: the IIHF rulebook text for the gold-medal game (Rule 84.6) does not state the length of each overtime period, so no figure is given here rather than a guess. It does state the rest: three skaters and a goaltender a side, a 15-minute intermission with an ice resurfacing before each, and — easily misread — teams do not change ends for the first overtime, but do for the second and for every one after it.

The IHUK In-House Rules amend the IIHF rule, and the amendment is that there often is no overtime at all. The In-House Rules state against Rule 84 that overtime "is only played in NIHL fixtures and in SNL fixtures where specifically provided for in competition regulations" — so a British league game that is level at the buzzer normally stays level, and none of the IIHF formats above applies to it. Where NIHL fixtures do go to overtime the ordinary format — National League games and National group-stage playoff games alike — is five minutes of 3-on-3 followed by a three-shooter game-winning-shots competition. Playoff Final Weekend is played to two different provisions, and they are different in kind from each other: a semi-final level after regulation goes to one 20-minute 5-on-5 period and then, if still tied, the same three-shooter GWS; the final goes to successive 20-minute 5-on-5 sudden-death periods — the "golden goal" — with no GWS at all (In-House Rules, Appendix 1). So the longer period does not by itself mean the shootout is gone: in the semi-final it is still there. See UK and England Rules.

USA Hockey (Rule 638): overtime is recommended, not mandated — a 5-minute rest, then a 10-minute sudden-victory period, on-ice strength never below three skaters plus a goalie, and a shootout may be used in addition to or instead of overtime. Crucially, the rule ends with a note that affiliates and local governing bodies may make their own rules on overtime length, number of periods and shootout format.

Rec and beer leagues: ⚠️ There is no general practice here to carry into a game — but "no general practice" is not "no book", and the one standalone recreational rulebook this document cites answers the question twice, differently. For ordinary league play CARHA Hockey's Official Rule Book hands it over: its Glossary defines a game as regular playing time "and overtime, if such is required, in accordance with league or tournament regulations", and Rule 85(a) lets the tie simply stand — "the game shall be called a 'tie' with the points being shared equally between the two teams." For CARHA's own tournaments the same book does set a format (Section Seven, Tournament General Rules, under Scoring & Tie Breakers): a tie in round-robin play "may be broken by a 5-minute 4 on 4 sudden victory stop time period if the rules and time permit", and if it survives that, "each team will be awarded 1 point"; a tie in the semi-final or final is broken by a "5-minute 5 on 5 sudden victory stop time period", then "a best of 3 shootout", then a sudden-death shootout with no player re-used until all have shot. ⚠️ Note the on-ice strength: 4-on-4 in the round robin and 5-on-5 in the knockout rounds — this book never runs 3-on-3. That is one book's tournament format and not a rec-hockey standard; how other leagues do it is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it, so no general figure is given here rather than a guess. Read your league's rules.

Timeouts

Each NHL team gets one 30-second timeout per game (Rule 87.1). IIHF Rule 87.1 also gives one 30-second timeout. USA Hockey gives one 60-second timeout (Rule 636(f)) — except in a curfew game, where neither team has one at all. Hockey Canada gives one of 30 seconds (Rule 6.17(e)). In minor and female hockey that timeout exists only in stop-time games and only "wherever the local Member gives approval", though Note 3 makes it mandatory at Hockey Canada minor and female regional and national championships. Rule 6.17's preamble lets Members and leagues "make their own rules regarding time of game for games under their jurisdiction" — so the 30 seconds is a local default, except that the preamble then requires this rule in inter-Member or national competition, where it is fixed.

There are specific situations where the NHL will not grant a timeout (Rule 87.1):

Following a faceoff violation.
To the defensive team following an icing.
To the defensive team when the goalie froze a puck shot in from beyond the centre red line.
When a defending player accidentally dislodged the net.
Once instructions have been given for a penalty shot, or at any point during a shootout.

The pattern is deliberate: all of those are situations where a team has just done something that is supposed to leave them stuck on the ice, tired. The rulebook closes the escape hatch.

IIHF Rule 87.1 lists the same exclusions in the same words, so a player under IIHF rules — which is what British league hockey runs on — gets no relief anywhere on that list. USA Hockey Rule 636(f) lists none of them. It carries a different restriction that has nothing to do with icing: "For time curfew games, no time-outs shall be permitted" — so in a game that must end by a fixed clock time, neither team has one at all. Its other restrictions are that the timeout be requested during a stoppage before the line-change procedure ends, and that a team wanting one at the same stoppage as its opponent must ask before the first timeout finishes. So outside a curfew game the escape hatch the NHL and IIHF close is open under USA Hockey: a team there really can ice the puck and then buy its tired players a minute. In a curfew game there is no minute to buy — and you are entitled to know in advance whether you are in one, because USA Hockey's own definition requires that "Both teams must be notified of the curfew time prior to the start of the game."

Hockey Canada writes no list of situations in which a time-out is refused — nothing answering to the NHL's and the IIHF's icing, frozen-shoot-in and dislodged-net exclusions was found anywhere in its book, and where it does reach the question it goes the other way: Rule 6.7(d)(iii) expressly permits either team the time-out after an icing, in the three categories where its no-change rule runs, while still barring the offending team from making substitutions during it. So the clock stops for you and the same five skaters take the draw. What conditions a Hockey Canada timeout is whether your category has one at all — the approval question above — and not what has just happened on the ice.

2. Offside

Offside: The rule

Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone (NHL Rule 83.1).

The mechanics, precisely:

Skates decide, not sticks. Your stick can be as far into the zone as you like.
You are offside when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line.
You are onside if either skate is in contact with the blue line, or on your own side of it, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge.
"Your own side of the line" is defined by a vertical plane rising from the leading edge of the blue line. If your skate has not yet broken that plane, you are onside — even if it is in the air. An airborne trail skate over the neutral zone is onside. Not every book reads it that way — under USA Hockey Rule 630(a) and Hockey Canada Rule 6.11 an airborne skate is offside, because both of those books require actual skate contact: with the neutral zone or the blue line in USA Hockey's words, with "the ice surface" in Hockey Canada's. Two books outside the four compared throughout this page are usually left out of this comparison, and both change the picture. The PWHL is a third plane book — its Rule 85.1 carries the NHL's plane sentence with only the pronouns changed — and CARHA is silent, its Rule 72(c) Note 1 giving the on-side sentence with no plane definition attached to it at all. So on this one question three books write the plane, two require contact, and one does not say. See Rule-set differences below.
New for 2025-26: "a 'skate' is to be considered the blade of the skate only." Your boot and your ankle are irrelevant; the blade is the reference.
The puck must completely cross the leading edge of the blue line. A puck sitting on the line is not yet in the zone.
The blue line is 12 inches wide (Rule 1.5). That is a full foot of legal real estate.
A player carrying the puck may cross the line ahead of it, provided he had possession and control of the puck with his stick before both skates crossed (2025-26 wording; the change is reported by Scouting The Refs, comparing the 2024-25 and 2025-26 books, which suggests it may close the case of a player kicking the puck ahead of themselves — the rulebook itself does not say so).

The technique consequence: drag a trail skate

Because one skate on or behind the plane keeps you onside, and because the line is a foot wide, you do not have to slow down at the blue line: you can attack it at full speed with your body and lead skate already in the zone, holding the trail blade on or behind the line until the puck crosses. Which book you are under changes how you do it — dragging the blade in contact with the line is legal under all six books checked on this rule — the four compared throughout this page, plus the PWHL's and CARHA's, but holding the trail skate in the air behind the plane is NHL, IIHF and PWHL only and is offside under USA Hockey Rule 630(a) and under Hockey Canada Rule 6.11, both of which require skate contact. CARHA does not answer it either way — see Rule-set differences below, and treat the airborne skate as unavailable there. How much North American rec, beer-league and youth hockey runs on USA Hockey's book, Hockey Canada's or CARHA's is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it, so find out which book your league runs. Keep the blade in contact with the line and you are onside in all six of them.

The technique itself belongs to Zone Entries — the four steps, the timing, and what it does to a defender. The same logic applies on a regroup: see Neutral Zone Systems, and Defending the Rush for the defender's side of it, which is that you cannot rely on the blue line to save you.

Delayed offside and tagging up

If attacking players have preceded the puck into the zone but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck out without delay or contact, the linesperson raises an arm and signals a delayed offside rather than blowing the whistle (NHL Rule 83.3, signal 29.7).

The delayed offside is nullified — arm drops, play carries on — if either:

All players of the offending team clear the zone (skate contact with the blue line). This is tagging up. All four books require the same thing and three of them use the same words: the NHL (83.3(i)), the IIHF (83.3(I)) and USA Hockey (630(d)(2)) say "at the same instant"; Hockey Canada 6.11(b)(ii) (the tag-up clause) states it as a result instead — "so that the attacking zone is completely clear of attacking players" — and its Interpretation 11 resolves that to "the instant the zone is completely free of attacking players". Do not read the wording difference as a permission. Neither version requires the exits to coincide, and neither lets you re-enter while a teammate is still deep: IIHF Situation 83.34 says it in the book that uses the phrase — a player has cleared "the instant the skate makes contact with the blue line", and "should another Team A player enter the attacking zone while A31 is airborne, the delayed off-side shall remain in effect" — and Hockey Canada Interpretation 11 rules the same way on the same point, that a substitute entering before the arm drops leaves the delayed off-side in effect. Tag as one and the zone is clear. ⚠️ Under USA Hockey 630(d) there is no delayed offside and no tag-up at all below Youth 15-Only, Girls 16U, High School and Adult — below those levels the whistle has already gone. Once the arm is down, everybody may re-enter and pursue the puck.
The defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone.

Clearing the zone requires actual skate contact — the vertical plane does not apply here. This is the one place the NHL's own wording is easy to misread, and the IIHF text spells it out: where the NHL parenthesis reads "(skate contact with the blue line)", IIHF Rule 83.3(I) reads "(skate contact with the blue line, '3D' judgement is not used in this situation)". So the airborne trail skate that keeps you onside on the entry does not clear you on a delayed offside. Coasting over the line in the air leaves the arm up. Touch the paint.

Under the NHL and the IIHF, the delayed offside becomes a whistle if any attacking player, while the arm is up:

Touches the puck, or
Attempts to gain possession of a loose puck, or
Forces the defending puck carrier further back into his own zone, or
Is about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier.

Those four are NHL Rule 83.3's, and IIHF Rule 83.3 lists the same four in the same order, differing only in pronoun — so they are the British reader's four as well. Note the second and third of them: under those two books you do not have to touch anything, and merely chasing the defenceman deeper into his own zone kills the play. That is the most commonly misunderstood part of the rule and it costs teams offensive-zone possession every game.

The other two books are shorter, and the fourth trigger — the whistle that arrives before contact — is written in neither of them. USA Hockey Rule 630(d) stops play only where "(1) An attacking player touches the puck. (2) An attacking player attempts to gain possession of the puck or continues to apply pressure to the defending puck carrier." Its pressure limb is actually wider than the NHL's — pressure that never drives the carrier deeper still brings the whistle there — but it is a judgement about pressure, not about an imminent hit, and there is no about-to-make-contact condition at all. Hockey Canada Rule 6.11(b)(ii) (the stop-play clause) is shorter again: "If any attacking player touches the puck or attempts to gain possession of a loose puck while the puck is still in the attacking zone, the Linesperson will stop play." No pressure limb, no contact limb, and a locative qualifier none of the other three carries.

Read that citation carefully if you go to look it up, because Hockey Canada's Rule 6.11(b) carries two separate i./ii. lists and "6.11(b)(ii)" therefore names two different rules. The tag-up clause — the one that nullifies the delayed offside, requiring skate contact from every attacker "so that the attacking zone is completely clear of attacking players" — sits under the heading "The Linesperson will drop their arm to nullify the off-side violation and allow play to continue if". The stop-play clause — touching the puck or going for a loose puck "while the puck is still in the attacking zone" — sits under "During a delayed offside, if". The labels tag-up clause and stop-play clause are used throughout this page to say which of the two is meant; they are not the rulebook's own names for them.

So under either North American book, do not close on the defending puck carrier expecting the whistle to arrive first. Nothing in Hockey Canada's rule stops play before you get there, and under USA Hockey the only thing that might is a linesperson's reading of pressure. The arm being up is not a stoppage, he is still playing the puck, and ⚠️ he is not braced for you. Hockey Canada answers the player who hits anyway only after the fact: Rule 6.11(d)(i) reaches an attacker who "deliberately plays or attempts to make a play on the puck or against an opposing player in a delayed off-side situation, knowing that they are off-side", and calls it an intentional offside, which costs a face-off in your own end (6.11(d)) rather than a penalty — and that is no protection whatever for the man you hit. Zone Entries works this divergence through from the forechecker's side, at the line.

A nice piece of trivia with real use: a player in the zone during a delayed offside may clear it by going to the bench. NHL Rule 83.3 writes the whole route: an attacker who "elects to proceed to his players' bench (which extends into the attacking zone) to be replaced by a teammate… shall be considered to have cleared the zone when both skates are off the ice and the Linesperson judges him to have left the playing surface" — and "[i]f his replacement comes onto the ice in the attacking zone, while the delayed off-side is still in effect, he too must clear the attacking zone." IIHF Rule 83.3 carries the same two sentences, differing only in pronoun and in capitalising "Players' bench".

Read the words "his players' bench" as a condition, because in one book getting the door wrong is a bench minor. USA Hockey's Casebook, at Rule 630 Situation 12, allows it "[p]rovided the player jumped into their own players' bench and no substitution entered the ice prior to the puck crossing the blue line" — and then: "However, if the player jumped off the ice surface into any other part of the rink, and was substituted for, their team must be assessed a bench minor penalty for illegal substitution." ⚠️ So going over the boards at the penalty bench, or anywhere else, with someone coming on for you, has left your own team short-handed in the act of trying to nullify an offside. Hockey Canada names the same door: its Interpretation 11 to Rule 6.11(b) has the player leave "into their Players' Bench" and nullifies the delayed offside "provided that the substitute for player A10 does not enter the attacking zone" until it has been — so this is not a USA Hockey peculiarity, although Hockey Canada's interpretation attaches no penalty to the wrong door, and neither the NHL's nor the IIHF's Rule 83.3 does either. (Situation 12 gives its rule reference as 630(a) Note 2, and the printed Rule 630(a) carries one Note. The number is the book's, not a misquotation of it.)

What to do as a player on a delayed offside:

If you are the one in the zone: get out, and get out cleanly to the line, do not just drift. The zone has to be empty before anyone re-enters, so the last man decides — that is true in all four books, whether they word it as "at the same instant" or as "completely clear of attacking players". Do not re-enter on your own tag while a teammate is still deep: Hockey Canada Interpretation 10(i) is explicit that "the attacking zone must be completely clear of all attacking players before the off-side is nullified", so your own tag has not nullified anything — and playing the puck or making a play against an opposing player while knowingly offside is an intentional offside under 6.11(d)(i), with the faceoff in your own end. (And below USA Hockey's Youth 15-Only, Girls 16U, High School and Adult levels there is no tag-up to use.)
Do not touch the puck. Do not chase the D. Retreat to the line, tag up, then attack again.
If you are the defending team: keep your head up and expect to be hit — in all four books. You have a moment to make a clean breakout pass, and how free that moment is does depend on your book, but in none of the four does the rule still protect you once the puck has left your stick. Under the NHL and the IIHF (Rule 83.3) an attacker who forces you deeper, or who is about to make contact with you, ends the play — but both of those triggers name the defending puck carrier, so the protection lapses the instant you pass, and a whistle for an imminent hit stops the play rather than the body already committed at speed. ⚠️ Under Hockey Canada Rule 6.11(b)(ii) nothing in the stop-play clause stops a forechecker closing on you at all, and under USA Hockey Rule 630(d) the only thing that might is "continues to apply pressure to the defending puck carrier" — which names the carrier too, and lapses on the same pass. Take the extra look; do not take it with your head down. See Breakouts.

Disallowed goals on a delayed offside

If the puck is shot into the zone creating a delayed offside and that same shot goes in the net — directly, or off the goalie, a player, the boards, the glass, equipment or an official — the goal is disallowed, even if the attacking team had cleared the zone in the meantime (Rule 83.4). The only way the attacking team scores during a delayed offside is if the defending team puts it in their own net with no contact or action by the attacking team.

That second sentence is in the NHL's book, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (Rule 85.4), and it is where the four books compared here part. IIHF Rule 83.4 carries both halves in the NHL's words, so it is the British rule too. Hockey Canada carries only the first: Rule 6.11(b) has the goal "not be allowed as the original shot was off-side", and Note 1 extends that to a shot that goes in after the attacking team has cleared — but no own-goal exception appears in Rule 6.11 or in any of its thirteen interpretations. USA Hockey carries neither in its Playing Rules. Rule 630 has no disallowed-goal provision, and the general scoring rule pulls both ways. Rule 617(c) lists what is not allowed, including "The puck enters the attacking zone illegally" (617(c)(8)); Rule 617(b) lists what is, including "The puck enters the goal as a result of any action by the defending team" (617(b)(2)). Nothing in the Playing Rules settles the delayed offside between the two — but the separate Casebook does, and settles it against the exception. Casebook Rule 630, Situation 41 asks "May a goal ever be allowed during the course of a delayed offside?" and answers "No", holding that this is so "[e]ven if the defending team shoots, passes or deflects the puck into its own goal" and even where the attacking team cleared the zone first. (Situation 41 gives its rule reference as 630(d.3); the printed Rule 630(d) stops at (2).) So of the four books USA Hockey is the one that writes the own-goal exception out, and Hockey Canada the one that leaves it unsettled. Under neither North American book count on it.

Where the faceoff goes

Where the draw goes after an offside, under NHL Rule 83.6 — an NHL rule, and where the IIHF and USA Hockey books put the draw is not established here, so do not assume it is the same place. One attacker has preceded the puck into the attacking zone at the right, and the two entries drawn are alternatives rather than a sequence, because what the rule turns on is how the puck followed him in. Carried over the line, and the draw is the neutral-zone spot nearest that attacking zone. Shot or passed in, and it goes back to the faceoff spot in the zone closest to where the pass came from — a spot, not the patch of ice he shot from — drawn here as a defenceman firing it in from his own end. The two draws are 89 feet apart up the ice, which is arithmetic on the rink dimensions, not a figure from the rulebook. That far marker is this pass’s answer and not a fixed destination. Move the pass and the spot moves with it.

What the shapes and fills mean

This is worth learning, because it is a real territorial consequence (Rule 83.6):

Offside where the puck entered the zone in an attacker's possession — the rule's own words are "as a result of the attacking team carrying the puck over the attacking blue line" → faceoff at the neutral-zone spot nearest that attacking zone. You lose the zone but keep the neutral-zone draw.

The carrier is not the offender. A player with possession and control may cross the line ahead of the puck, as quoted above (Rule 83.1), so nobody is ever offside for carrying it in. The offence is a teammate who had already preceded the puck over the line. What Rule 83.6 sorts on is how the puck entered the zone, not who took it in.
Offside where the puck entered on a shot or a pass → faceoff at the "face-off spot in the zone closest to the point of origin of the shot or pass (even if deflected off an attacking or defending player or an official)", which Rule 83.6's delayed-offside list adds is the one "that gives the offending team the least amount of territorial advantage". That is a faceoff spot, not the patch of ice the pass left from — if your defenceman fired it in from behind his own net, the draw goes to an end-zone dot in your own end, not to the goal line where he was standing.

So: a carried offside costs you a little; a pass-created offside can cost you the length of the neutral zone and most of your own end on top of it. At the extreme the two draws are 89 ft apart up the ice — from the neutral-zone spot 5 ft outside the attacking blue line, back to an end-zone dot 20 ft out from your own goal line. (Those two spot positions, and the 64 ft from blue line to goal line that sits between them, are owned by Rink Map; the 89 ft is the distance between those two spots, measured in opposite directions from centre ice: the neutral-zone spot sits 20 ft out (the blue line is 25 ft from centre, and Rule 1.9 puts the spot 5 ft outside it), and an end-zone dot sits 69 ft out (the goal line is 89 ft from centre, and Rule 1.9 puts the dot 20 ft in front of it). 20 plus 69. Those are the rulebook's dimensions added up, not a distance the rulebook states. Those are NHL-sheet distances, and USA Hockey Rule 630(c) words the location differently again — "the nearest last play face-off location".) That is a real argument for carrying the puck over the line under pressure rather than firing a hopeful pass into the zone.

One more thing decides where the draw goes, and it is not in the offside rule at all: which infraction gets called when two happen on the same play. A defenceman fires the puck the length of the ice while a teammate is already over the far blue line, and that is a delayed offside and a potential icing at once — two calls that send the faceoff to opposite ends of the rink. Three of the four books answer it, and all three lean the same way: the icing. None of them answers it in its playing rules — the answers live in the case and interpretation layers, so they are rulings rather than rule text. USA Hockey's Casebook, at Rule 630 Situation 33, rules that "[t]he icing infraction takes precedence" and that "the face-off shall take place in the end zone of the offending team because the icing infraction was completed" — printed under the heading for the classifications where tag-up applies, so it does not speak for the ones below them. Its Situation 21 gives the general principle, on a different collision: "As a general rule, the more 'serious' infraction is penalized." Hockey Canada states it in the book, at Interpretation 8 to Rule 6.11(b): "Where icing occurs with an attacking player in an off-side position, the infraction that is called is icing and the ensuing face-off will take place in the offending team's end zone" — and its Interpretation 10(iii) adds a limb the others do not, for the case where the officials go the other way: "If the play is stopped because of the off-side, the ensuing face-off would go to the face-off spot nearest to where the shot originated."

The IIHF answers it as a judgement rather than a rule, and only in its Situation Handbook. Situation 81.20 (Situation 81.21 in the 2026/27 edition) reads: "The Linesperson shall use discretion to determine whether to stop play for off-side or intentional off-side; however, whenever possible with player safety at the forefront, the linesperson will allow the icing to be completed." Situation 81.1 turns it the other way where the offside attacker is the danger — there the linesperson lets the icing run because "there will be no physical contact by the attacking player on the delayed off-side", and the Handbook's note adds that if the linesperson judges the offside attacker "will get to the puck first or may make contact with an opponent, the linesperson must stop play and call the off-side first." ⚠️ No precedence provision was found in the NHL's rulebook text or in the IIHF's — searched by rule number at 81 and 83 and by concept across both books — and the NHL publishes no case book, so for the NHL this is unanswered here rather than settled.

Under the NHL and the IIHF that call decides more than the end you draw in — it decides whether you can change, because the icing carries the substitution bar and the offside carries none. The IIHF Handbook says so in the same breath: "It is imperative the Linesperson inform the nearest Referee and the teams of what the call is immediately after the whistle as it will affect the offending team's ability to make a player substitution." Under USA Hockey there is nothing to decide, because its icing carries no substitution bar either.

Video review

An offside that leads to a goal is reviewable by Coach's Challenge (NHL Rule 38.2(a)). An unsuccessful challenge costs the challenging team a minor penalty (2:00) for delaying the game, and a double minor (4:00) for any subsequent unsuccessful challenge in the same game (Rule 38.8). Other than a challenge or the delayed-offside case above, no goal can be disallowed after the fact for offside (Rule 83.4).

The IIHF has the same machinery — Rule 83.5 routes an offside challenge to Rule 38, and IIHF Rule 38.7 imposes the same escalating bench minor: "a bench minor penalty (2 minutes) for Delaying the Game", then "a double-bench minor penalty (4 minutes)" for a further unsuccessful challenge.

The IHUK In-House Rules remove it entirely, and this is one of the sharpest British departures from everything else in this document. ⚠️ There is no review during the game. That is not the same as nothing being reviewed — In-House Rule 28 opens supplementary-discipline cases through "the defined video review process", and that can reach an incident nobody penalised at the time. The In-House Rules state against IIHF Rule 37 that "On-ice video review is not available in EIH or SIHA competition and may not be used by referees, official scorers, timekeepers, or any other game official", and against Rule 38 that "As on-ice video review is not available (see Rule 37), a Coach's Challenge is not permitted in EIH or SIHA competition." The same bar is repeated against double minor penalties (18.4), high-sticking (60.3, in Section 8), goaltender interference (69.1), goals (78.5, 78.6) and puck out of bounds (85.7). In EIH and SIHA competition the referee's call on the ice is the call, on every one of those. ⚠️ The Elite League is the exception, and it runs the other way. The Motorpoint EIHL Casebook 26-27 keeps both: its Rule 37.1 has video review operations "conducted in the arena or remotely from the EIHL Situation Room where appropriate", its 37.2 reviews goals "at the discretion of the on-ice officials or within the limited scope available through the coaches' challenge", and its 38.5 lets coaches initiate a challenge "at any time throughout the game Regulation time or at any time during Overtime". So wherever this document describes a decision being reviewed, challenged or overturned, that is the NHL, the international tournament game and the Elite League — not EIH or SIHA competition. See UK and England Rules.

Rule-set differences

IIHF Rule 83 reaches the same place as the NHL rule on everything that matters, including the plane concept, but it is not word-for-word. ⚠️ That comparison is edition-dependent, and the newer IIHF book has closed the gap. The IIHF 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book carries neither of the NHL's 2025-26 clarifications — no "blade of the skate only", and no "with his stick" in the puck-carrier clause. The IIHF 2026/27 book carries both, in the NHL's own words: at 83.1, "For the purposes of this rule, a 'skate' is to be considered the blade of the skate only", and, in the puck-carrier clause, "provided they have 'possession and control' of the puck with their stick prior to both skates completely crossing the leading edge of the blue line" — where the 2025/26 clause reads only "prior to their skates crossing the leading edge". ⚠️ Both changes alter what you do. Under the newer book only the blade counts, so a blade that has broken the plane is offside however far back the boot is; and the puck-carrier's carve-out now requires the stick, so pushing the puck across with a skate no longer earns it. 🇬🇧 Whether that has reached Britain is unresolved, and this document does not resolve it. The IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 adopt "the latest IIHF Official Rule Book (Version 1.1, published July 2025)" by name and version in their Introduction, while their cover names "the Current IIHF Rule Book" — and the token "83" appears nowhere in that document, so it amends Rule 83 not at all. If you play IIHF-sanctioned hockey the 2026/27 wording is yours now — and so it is in the Elite League, whose Casebook writes no Rule 83 at all and makes the 2026 - 2027 IIHF book the ruling for everything it does not write. In any other British league, ask which edition your competition is on. See UK and England Rules. It adds two things the NHL text does not have: the sentence that "the question of an off-side never arises until the puck has completely crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is to be made"; and, in the delayed-offside clearing test, the explicit "'3D' judgement is not used in this situation" quoted above.
USA Hockey Rule 630(a) requires contact, not a plane — and that reverses the airborne trail skate. The rule reads: "The position of the player's stick shall not be considered in all instances deciding offside. A player is considered 'offside' when the player does not have skate contact with any part of the Neutral Zone or the blue line when the puck crosses the determining edge of the blue line." The Note adds that "a player only needs to have skate contact with one skate with the blue line to be considered 'onside.'" So for a skate on the line the outcome matches the NHL — but a skate held in the air over the neutral zone is onside under the NHL and IIHF and offside under USA Hockey. If you play USA Hockey, drag the blade in contact; do not lift it — and read the next bullet before you assume that is the only book it applies to.
Hockey Canada Rule 6.11 reaches the same result by different words, so the split is two books against two — not one against three. It does not borrow USA Hockey's test; it counts only skates touching the ice. The rule reads: "Once the puck has completely crossed the blue-line, it is the position of the player's skates, and not that of their stick or any other part of their body, will be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. Only the player's skate(s) that are in physical contact with the ice surface will be used in determining an off-side." Its Interpretation 3 to Rule 6.11(a) settles the case in one line: "A player has one skate above the blue-line (not touching the ice) and one skate over the blue-line at the instant the puck completely crosses the blue-line. OFF-SIDE."
The PWHL is a third plane book, and it is in almost no comparison of this rule. The PWHL Official Rule Book 2025-2026 numbers offside Rule 85 rather than 83, so a search by the NHL's number finds nothing. Its 85.1 carries the NHL's sentence with only the pronouns changed — her and she where the NHL writes his and he: "On her own side of the line shall be defined by a 'plane' of the blue line which shall extend from the leading edge of the blue line upwards. If a player's skate has yet to break the 'plane' prior to the puck completely crossing the leading edge, she is deemed to be on–side for the purpose of the off–side rule." It also carries both of the NHL's 2025-26 clarifications that the IIHF's 2025/26 book does not — "a 'skate' is to be considered the blade of the skate only", and the puck-carrier's "possession and control of the puck with her stick prior to both skates completely crossing the leading edge of the blue line." So the airborne trail skate is onside in the PWHL. This is a women's professional book and stands for that league, not for women's hockey generally.
CARHA does not answer this at all, and the silence is the finding rather than a gap in the search. Its Rule 72(c) Note 1 gives the on-side sentence without the definition every other book attaches to it: "A player is on-side when either of their skates are in physical contact with, or on their own side of, the blue line at the instant the puck completely crosses the edge of that blue line, regardless of the position of their stick." The word "plane" appears nowhere in the book, so "on their own side of" is left undefined — CARHA neither rescues an airborne skate nor rules one offside, and it must not be read as following the NHL because its sentence resembles the NHL's. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume is held here to settle it, and the one situation the book's own Case Situations section prints under Rule 72 asks a different question — whether a player may skate the puck backwards over the line — so nothing in that book resolves the airborne skate either way. ⚠️ The practical answer is the one that is safe under all six books: keep the blade on the ice. CARHA's book governs CARHA-affiliated leagues only, and how much adult rec and beer-league hockey that is, is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it.
USA Hockey delayed offside only exists at Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult (Rule 630(d)). Below those levels there is no tagging up — offside is immediate. If you coach or play youth hockey, this is a genuine difference in how you attack the line. Hockey Canada writes no such limit — 6.11 is unscoped. The rule carries no division or category clause at all, where the same book scopes its icing rule in terms (6.7(e), "In categories of U18AAA, Junior, and at the option of the Member in Senior") and its body-checking rule too (7.3, "This rule applies only in divisions of U13 and below, in female hockey, and any other divisions approved by a Member of Hockey Canada."). So a delayed offside tags up the same way in every Hockey Canada division.
The British layer scopes it by competition rather than by rule. The IHUK In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 83, so the IIHF tag-up applies as written — but at U12 there is no delayed offside to tag up on. The IHUK Junior Rules of Competition, Appendix D (Offsides & Frozen Pucks), run U12 offside without a stoppage: "Play does not stop", the official calls the attacking team out of the zone, and "Failure to retreat quickly = delay of game penalty." U10 is played cross-ice or half-ice, so the question does not arise there either. Which format you are in is set by your competition’s regulations, not by either rule book.
The acts that turn a delayed offside into a whistle also differ, and the one that matters for your safety is written in only three of the six books read here. Being about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier is a whistle under NHL and IIHF Rule 83.3 and under PWHL Rule 85.3, and appears in none of USA Hockey Rule 630(d), Hockey Canada Rule 6.11(b)(ii) or CARHA Rule 72(e)(2) (the stop-play clauses) — so ⚠️ in none of those three rules does an imminent hit itself bring a whistle. ⚠️ Do not close on the defending puck carrier expecting one to arrive before you do. Hockey Canada and CARHA write no pressure limb either — CARHA's 72(e)(2) stops play only where "any attacking player touches the puck or attempts to gain possession of a loose puck while the puck is still in the attacking zone", which is Hockey Canada's clause in the same shape and nothing more. USA Hockey's pressure limb — "continues to apply pressure to the defending puck carrier" (630(d)(2)) — can stop play before contact, but it is a linesperson's judgement about pressure rather than about an imminent hit, and it names the carrier, so it lapses the moment he passes. ⚠️ That negative is about those three rules, though, and not about all three books — USA Hockey's Casebook does give body contact as a reason to blow the whistle. At Rule 630, Situation 39 it directs that where offside players "decline to turn immediately and go back to the blue line to 'tag up' and instead continue in pursuit of the puck, play should be stopped immediately", reasoning that "[t]he potential for unnecessary body contact should not be allowed in a situation where an infraction (offside) has already occurred." Read it no wider than its own facts: it is guidance to the linesperson on a delayed offside already in progress, not a whistle for an imminent hit anywhere on the ice, and it carries an exception of its own where a defender will plainly reach a loose puck first and have a reasonable chance to advance it out of the zone. Hockey Canada's thirteen interpretations to Rule 6.11 were read end to end, and not one of them mentions contact, checking, pressure or body play at all. What that book does write sits in a different clause and arrives too late to help you: Rule 6.11(d)(i), quoted above, reaches an attacker who "deliberately plays or attempts to make a play on the puck or against an opposing player in a delayed off-side situation, knowing that they are off-side", and then "play will be stopped immediately" — so that whistle answers the hit once it is thrown rather than heading it off. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume is held here, and the single situation its own Case Situations section prints under Rule 72 asks whether a player may skate the puck backwards over the line, which is a different question. The NHL, IIHF, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada rules are set against each other in full under §Delayed offside and tagging up above.

3. Icing

Icing: The rule

If a team equal or superior in numerical strength to their opponent shoots, bats or deflects the puck from their own half of the ice across the opposition goal line, play is stopped (NHL Rule 81.1). The centre red line divides the ice into halves for this purpose, and the reference point is the point of last contact by the team in possession.

"Gaining the line"

To nullify a potential icing, your team must "gain the line": the puck, while on a player's stick — not a skate — must make contact with the centre red line (NHL Rule 81.1; IIHF Rule 81.1 carries the sentence word for word).

This is the detail almost nobody knows. If you are carrying the puck through the neutral zone and you fire it down the ice, the question is not where you were, it is where the puck on your stick was. Carry it that extra half-stride so the puck touches the red line and you can dump it in freely. Under those two books, kicking it forward over the line with your skate does not count.

Two players in exactly the same place — both bodies on the centre red line, one drawn above the other — and only one of them has iced the puck. NHL Rule 81.1, for a team equal or superior in numerical strength: to nullify a potential icing the puck must make contact with the centre red line while it is on a player’s stick, not on a skate. So the question is not where you were. It is where the puck on your stick was. The shading is the shooting team’s own half: the upper player’s dump-in leaves with the puck still inside it and is iced, while the lower player’s leaves with the puck touching the line — the black dot, which is the whole rule. This notation has no symbol for a stick, so what you can see is only where each dump-in begins.

What the shapes and fills mean

"Gaining the line" is an NHL and IIHF phrase — the PWHL's Rule 83.1 carries it word for word — and it is in neither of the other two books. It appears nowhere in the USA Hockey Official Playing Rules 2025-29 or the Hockey Canada Playing Rules 2026-2028, and neither of those books draws the stick-versus-skate distinction anywhere in its icing rule. Both word the test instead as the point of last contact with the puck: USA Hockey Rule 624 (Note) says "the point of last contact with the puck shall be used to determine whether a potential icing exists", and Hockey Canada's Interpretation 5 to Rule 6.7(c)(ii) says "The key point is where the puck was last contacted, relative to the centre red line, prior to crossing the goal line." Hockey Canada adds a stick test for a puck sitting on the line, in Interpretation 1 to Rule 6.7(a): it is "NOT ICING if the stick was still in contact with the centre red line when the puck was shot." The two also differ on the skate as an instrument: Hockey Canada Rule 6.7 lists "kicking" among the actions that ice the puck, while USA Hockey Rule 624(a) lists only "shoots, bats with the hand or stick or deflects". ⚠️ So do not carry the NHL sentence into a USA Hockey or Hockey Canada game as though it were the rule there. What is safe in all four books is the same act: get the puck itself past the red line, on your stick. What differs is what happens if you use a skate instead, and neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada answers that in terms.

Hybrid, no-touch and touch icing

There are three systems:

Touch icing (historical): a defending skater must physically touch the puck for icing to be called. Produces high-speed races into the end boards; largely abandoned for injury reasons.
No-touch / automatic icing: play stops the instant the puck completely crosses the goal line, whoever is chasing.
Hybrid icing: the race is to the puck, but the linesperson must decide it by the time the first player reaches the end-zone faceoff dot — the dot is a deadline, not a finish line.

Hybrid icing, and why the end-zone faceoff dot is a deadline rather than a finish line. Both skaters reach the dot line at the same instant, and the marked box is the near dot — marked as the cut-off for the decision, not as a place a draw is taken. Under NHL Rule 81.1, and IIHF Rule 81.1 in the same words — though not the whole rule, since the IIHF adds a paragraph for when there is no race at all — the decision "will be made by no later than the instant the first player reaches the end zone face-off dots with the player’s skate being the determining factor" — and then, in the rule’s own clarifying sentence, "the determining factor is which player would first touch the puck, not which player would first reach the end zone face-off dots." So being level at the box settles nothing. What settles it is being clearly on course to reach the puck first, and a race too close to determine by that instant is icing. Your goaltender is drawn staying put on purpose: under those two books (Rule 81.3) and the PWHL’s (Rule 83.3), a goaltender who "feigns playing the puck, attempts to play the puck, or skates in the direction of the puck on an icing at any time" waves it off. ⚠️ And this is not everybody’s icing. USA Hockey plays automatic icing outside adult sled hockey, completed "the instant the puck has completely crossed the goal line" (Rule 624, Note), so there is no race to draw at all, and CARHA’s icing is automatic too (Rule 65). Hockey Canada runs hybrid only in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member’s option (Rule 6.7(e)). Ask which your league plays. The race is not a licence to hit. Unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious icing play that results in him hitting or impacting the boards "is boarding and must be penalized as such" under NHL 41.1, IIHF 41.1 and Hockey Canada 7.2, word for word, and USA Hockey penalises the same contact without naming boarding, at Rule 624(d). And whoever wins it, how you arrive at the wall is the part that hurts people, in every league, checking or not. Never take that contact with your back to the boards, and never duck. A turned back makes it a hit from behind, which you can neither see nor brace for, and a tucked chin straightens the cervical spine. Get your skates parallel to the wall instead, take it on your forearm and hip, head up and chin off your chest — and not on the point of your shoulder, and not the whole shoulder if you can help it.

What the shapes and fills mean

The NHL and IIHF both use hybrid icing (NHL Rule 81.1; IIHF Rule 81.1 — near-identical wording, but not identical, because the IIHF adds a paragraph on what happens when there is no race for the puck at all). The mechanism is:

The linesperson first judges that the puck will cross the goal line.
He then judges which player would touch the puck first.
That decision is made no later than the instant the first player reaches the end-zone faceoff dots, with the skate as the determining factor.
If the race is too close to call by that point, icing is called.

Note the clarification the rulebook makes explicitly: the determining factor is who would touch the puck first, not who reaches the dot first. The dot is a deadline for the decision, not the finish line of the race.

The NHL adopted hybrid icing in 2013-14 and the IIHF in 2014. USA Hockey uses automatic (no-touch) icing — Rule 624 states that "icing the puck shall have been completed the instant the puck has completely crossed the goal line", with no hybrid provision in the standing game. (Precisely: the one place "hybrid icing" does appear in the 2025-29 book is the Disabled Hockey / sled section, which reads "Automatic icing will be used at youth levels. Hybrid icing will be used in adult classification games." That does not apply to standing hockey, but the phrase is in the book.) Some rec and youth leagues use no-touch; a few still use touch icing. Ask before your first game — it changes whether you chase a dump-in at all.

The full wave-off list

This is the NHL book's list, read clause by clause out of NHL Rule 81 — it is not a list of what every book waves off. ⚠️ Each item carries its own book scope, so read the item and not the list — items 1, 2, 6 and 7 are established in all five books, items 3, 4, 8 and 10 name the books that differ, and the goalkeeper items 5 and 9 reach further under the NHL and the IIHF — and the PWHL, which writes both (Rules 83.3 and 83.5) — than under the other three, with the USA Hockey and Hockey Canada positions set out under the list. ⚠️ That is not a clause-by-clause reading of all five icing rules against one another, so where an item does not mention a book, take it as not found rather than as not there. Under NHL Rules 81.1, 81.3, 81.5 and 81.6, icing is not called if:

The team that shot it is shorthanded. All five books grant this, though they do not all take the count at the same instant and ⚠️ two of them ration it — the paragraphs immediately below set that out, and Section 6 quotes all five.
The puck goes directly off a faceoff into the far end. All five books write this one too, and not one of them makes it conditional on being shorthanded — it holds at even strength, for both teams, which is the half a reader who has just read item 1 would never think to look for. NHL Rule 81.5: "If the puck shall go beyond the goal line in the opposite half of the ice directly from either of the players while facing-off, it shall not be considered a violation of this rule." IIHF Rule 81.5 carries that sentence word for word in its own capitals, in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions alike. Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(c)(iv) lists among the circumstances where "[i]cing will not be called" — "[i]f the action that causes the icing is directly from a player taking the face-off." USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(3) nullifies it where "[t]he puck travels the length of the ice as a result of either player participating in a face-off." CARHA Rule 65(e): "Play shall continue and the 'icing the puck' infraction shall not be called if it is caused directly from either player taking the face-off." ⚠️ Four of the five print the same limiting word — directly. USA Hockey is the one that does not, tying its carve-out instead to the puck travelling the length of the ice "as a result of" one of the two takers. Play all five the strict way, and under USA Hockey that is not merely the cautious guess: its own Casebook, at Rule 624 Situation 15, reads the rule back as nullifying icing where the puck was "shot by a player directly from a face-off", and requires that "the puck must receive its impetus from the initial stick contact on the face-off." On the facts it puts — "both sticks make initial contact with the puck", it stays near the dot, and the centre gains possession an instant later and shoots it the length of the ice — the answer is "Yes", icing. So this is the puck your own stroke sends the length of the ice from the dot, and not one you win back to a defenceman who then clears it. Treat any other touch as ending it and play the ordinary rule — that a puck which clips a stick on its way is still covered is not a question any of the five rules answers in terms, and the strict reading is the one that cannot cost you. Faceoffs carries the full treatment.
The puck touches any part of an opposing player — stick, skate or body — before or after crossing the goal line. ⚠️ The words or after are the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's, and no other book here writes them. NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5 — and PWHL Rule 83.5 in the feminine — reach a touch "at any time before or after crossing the goal line"; USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(4) nullifies only for a touch "prior to crossing the goal line" and its Rule 624 Note completes the icing "the instant the puck has completely crossed the goal line"; Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(c)(i) says "at any time prior to crossing the goal line"; and CARHA Rule 65(g)(1) names no moment at all. Outside the NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL, do not expect a touch after the line to save you.
The puck touches the opposing goalkeeper in any way. ⚠️ Same split on the timing: NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5 and PWHL Rule 83.5 put the goalkeeper in the same sentence as any other opponent, "at any time before or after crossing the goal line", where CARHA Rule 65(g)(2) reaches a touch by "the goalkeeper, goal skates, or stick at any time before crossing the goal line".
The opposing goalkeeper feigns playing the puck, attempts to play it, or skates in the direction of it at any time. ⚠️ This is NHL and IIHF Rule 81.3 and PWHL Rule 83.3, and it is the item that travels worst — the USA Hockey and Hockey Canada positions are both narrower and are set out under the list, and CARHA writes no goalkeeper-movement limb at all. Do not assume a goaltender drifting at the puck has waved anything off.
A linesperson judges that an opposing skater (not the goalie) could have played the puck but did not. This explicitly includes a team declining to play it during a line change to avoid a too-many-men call. ⚠️ The limb itself is in all five books and every one of them excepts the goalkeeper — NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5, USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(5), Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(c)(iii), CARHA Rule 65(f). The line-change half is written into the rule by the NHL and the IIHF; Hockey Canada reaches the same answer in Interpretation 7 to 6.7(c)(iii), where a substitute comes on as the puck passes and playing it "would constitute a Bench Minor penalty under Rule 10.7 – Too Many Players" — "NO ICING."
The puck rebounds off an opponent in their own half so as to cross the shooter's own goal line — that is not icing on the shooter. All five books write this one — NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5's opening paragraph, USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(2), Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(c)(v), and CARHA's Note 3 to Rule 65(a): "[w]hen the puck is shot and rebounds from the body or stick of an opponent in their own half of the ice and crosses the goal line of the player shooting, it shall NOT be considered as 'icing'."
The puck goes into the net — that is a goal, not an icing. None of the four NHL clauses cited above says so, and neither do the IIHF's; it is the practical effect of the icing call requiring a stoppage the goal has already produced. USA Hockey states it expressly, in Rule 624(a): "if the puck has entered the goal as a result of a legal action by the team shooting the puck, the goal shall be allowed." Hockey Canada says it in Rule 6.7's opening paragraph — "[i]f the puck enters the net on such a play, then it is not icing." ⚠️ CARHA names the limit that USA Hockey's "legal action" leaves implicit, at Rule 65(a): the goal stands "except if the puck has been batted with the hand or kicked into the opposing net." So a length-of-the-ice hand-bat or kick that finds the net is not a goal you should expect to be given.
The goalkeeper takes any action to dislodge the puck from the back of the net. ⚠️ NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5 and PWHL Rule 83.5 write this one; the USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA icing rules carry no counterpart to it.
The attacking team gained the line as defined above — an NHL, IIHF and PWHL wave-off (PWHL Rule 83.1). USA Hockey and Hockey Canada do not use the phrase, and write their own tests instead: USA Hockey judges "the point of last contact with the puck" (Rule 624 Note), and its Casebook rules that a puck which "leaves the stick directly on the center red line" is not a potential icing (Rule 624 Situation 9); Hockey Canada writes a stick-on-the-line test — a puck shot from on the centre red line is "NOT ICING if the stick was still in contact with the centre red line when the puck was shot" (Interpretation 1 to Rule 6.7(a)) — alongside "where the puck was last contacted, relative to the centre red line" (Interpretation 5). ⚠️ CARHA writes something adjacent, and it is not the same test: Rule 65(a) provides that "[a]ny contact with the puck over the centre red line, with the puck continuing down over the goal line nullifies 'icing' the puck" — a contact with the puck beyond the line, not the puck carried across it on your stick — and in the CARHA leagues that divide the ice at the blue lines instead, Rule 65(b) moves that nullification to "the defensive teams blue line", without saying which team that is — so ask your league where its line is. Do not treat the two as interchangeable.

The puck deflecting off an official does not automatically nullify a potential icing.

Two things worth knowing on the shorthanded clause, and only the second of them is an exception to it. The first is not an exception at all but the test itself, and what every book read here shares is a count rather than a clock: you are exempt while you are below their on-ice numerical strength, so a penalised player whose own time has run out counts as back on the ice whether or not he has left the box — and where that still leaves you a skater short, as a 5-on-3 does, you are still exempt. ⚠️ The instant at which the judgement is taken is where the books diverge, so do not carry one book's wording into another: the NHL and the IIHF time it to the penalty expiring (Rule 81.6), Hockey Canada and CARHA to "the instant the puck is shot", and USA Hockey writes both into a single sentence — which is why a clear released before expiry is not icing under any of the five, however late it lands. Section 6 quotes all five on both halves of that. And a team serving a major can lose the exemption — but only once the major has expired with nobody on the penalty bench to come out, at which point they "will continue to play short-handed but are not permitted to ice the puck. Icing will be called." ⚠️ During the major itself that carve-out has not bitten — though the head count above still governs, so a penalty against them that leaves you level takes the clear away — and Rule 20.3 expressly lets the penalty bench stay empty until a stoppage before the penalty ends — unless minors are being served on the clock alongside the major, where the substitute is due "immediately" (Rule 81.6, third paragraph; Rule 20.3).

Two books differ on the goalie, and the second of them differs further than the first. USA Hockey differs first: Rule 624(b) lists five wave-offs and does not include the goalkeeper moving toward or feigning at the puck. Only actual contact by an opposing player, including the goalie, waves it off. USA Hockey also restricts the shorthanded exemption to Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult classifications (Rule 624(b)(1)) — below those levels, a shorthanded team cannot ice the puck.

Hockey Canada goes further still, and which answer you get depends on your category. Its general list at Rule 6.7(c) has five limbs and no goalkeeper limb at all. The only goalkeeper-movement wave-off in the book sits inside hybrid icing at Rule 6.7(e)(vi), which applies "[i]n categories of U18AAA, Junior, and at the option of the Member in Senior" and nowhere else — and even there it is narrower than the NHL's: "If a Goaltender leaves their crease with both skates, moving in the direction of the puck, the Linesperson will wave off the hybrid-icing." No feigning limb, no attempting limb, and both skates rather than a drift. ⚠️ Outside those categories the book reverses the call, at Interpretation 8 to Rule 6.7(c)(iii): "In Minor and female hockey (excluding where Rule 6.7 (e) – Hybrid Icing is in effect), Team A ices the puck, and the goaltender from Team B comes out of their crease to potentially play the puck. The goaltender does not play the puck. RULING ICING." — the wave-off returning only "[u]nless the goaltender prevents an attacking player from playing the puck". CARHA writes no goalkeeper-movement limb either; its Rule 65(g)(2) reaches an actual touch and nothing less. So the item-5 wave-off is the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (Rule 83.3), and a goaltender who wanders out on a dump-in in most of the rest of the hockey world has waved nothing off.

The consequences

Under NHL rules, an icing costs the offending team three things:

A defensive-zone faceoff. And the attacking team chooses which of the two end-zone dots the draw is taken at (Rule 81.2).
No line change. The offending team may not substitute before the faceoff (Rules 81.4, 82.1). The exceptions are narrow: replacing a goalie who had been pulled for an extra attacker, replacing an injured player, or when a penalty has been assessed that changes on-ice strength. Players on the ice are determined at the moment the puck leaves the offending player's stick.
No timeout. The defensive team may not take a timeout after an icing (Rule 87.1). Nor is a commercial timeout permitted — the same rule states that "No commercial time-out is permitted after the calling of an icing infraction" — except where a penalty is assessed that affects the on-ice strength of either team.

If a linesperson erred in calling icing, the faceoff is at centre ice (Rule 81.2) — the same remedy appears in IIHF Rule 81.2 and USA Hockey Rule 624(c).

If the defending team deliberately abstains from playing the puck to force the stoppage, the referee moves the draw to the corner spot nearest their own goal (Rule 81.2).

IIHF imposes all three consequences, in the NHL's own words. IIHF Rule 81.2 gives the attacking team the choice of dot; IIHF Rule 81.4 bars substitution; and IIHF Rule 87.1 reads "No 'time-out' shall be granted to the defensive team following an icing, following the goalkeeper causing a stoppage of play from a shoot-in from beyond the center red line, or when a defending Player accidentally dislodges the net causing a stoppage of play" — the NHL sentence with the punctuation changed, third limb and all. If you play under IIHF rules, which is what British league hockey runs on at every level, treat the NHL treatment above as your own. England Ice Hockey does not amend any of it — the In-House Rules contain nothing against Rules 81, 82 or 87.

🇬🇧 ⚠️ That is the rule book, though, and your competition's own Rules of Competition sit on top of it — in IHUK junior competition there is no icing at U12 at all. The IHUK Junior Ice Hockey Leagues Rules of Competition 2026-2027 says it in one line, in Appendix D, U12 Competition Format & Administration: "No icing calls at U12." ⚠️ Do not take that as one tweak to a game you already know, because the same appendix replaces most of the stoppage machinery this section describes: the clock runs "unless otherwise agreed by both teams prior to the game", line changes are automatic on a buzzer every 60 seconds with the puck "left where it is", and offside does not stop play either — "Play does not stop", the official calling "Reds OUT!" and the attacking team having to clear the zone before re-entering, with "[f]ailure to retreat quickly" a delay-of-game penalty. So at U12 a clear the length of the ice is simply live — no whistle, no defensive-zone draw — and the reason is the competition format rather than an amendment to Rule 81. ⚠️ And because no whistle ends it, that chase runs all the way to the end boards. How to arrive at that wall is in What this means for how you play below, and it holds whether or not your competition has an icing rule at all. UK and England Rules is the document for the In-House amendments, the British age categories and the U12 and U10 competition formats in full. ⚠️ IHUK revises these regulations in place, at unchanged web addresses, so read the current season's own Rules of Competition before you rely on a detail of them.

There is one genuine split between the IIHF and NHL books inside the substitution bar — but read the caveat under it before you use it. Both books allow a team that has iced the puck to substitute for a pulled goalkeeper, an injured player, or a penalty that changes on-ice strength. The IIHF adds a fourth: Rule 81.4 permits a substitution "to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker, to replace an injured Player, a Player with a broken skate, or when a penalty has been assessed which affects the on-ice strength of either team." NHL Rule 81.4 is the same sentence with that six-word clause absent — set side by side it is the only difference of substance between the two rules, the rest being the IIHF's house capitals and quotation marks, and IIHF 81.4 is word-for-word identical across the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions.

But the IIHF book states the icing substitution bar twice, and the two statements differ — so do not plan a change around the fourth exception. Rule 82.1's later paragraph restates the bar for a team in violation of "Rule 63.8 – Delaying the Game or Rule 81 – Icing", and its list is "to replace a goalkeeper who had been substituted for an extra attacker, to replace an injured Player, or when a penalty has been assessed which affects the 'on-ice strength' of either team" — the other three, and not the broken skate. The NHL has no such mismatch: its 81.4 and 82.1 carry the same three. Which of the IIHF's two lists controls an icing has not been published. 81.4 is the icing-specific rule, triggered by icing alone, where 82.1 covers delay of game as well — but the book does not rank them, and the IIHF's own Situation Handbook reads the two together rather than choosing between them: Situation 81.8 answers a substitution question "Both teams must replace their penalized players but may not make any other substitutions. Rule 81.4 and Rule 82.1", citing both as one authority. No situation in either Handbook edition names a broken skate, so a search by phrase finds nothing here — but that is not the same as silence, and one answer cuts against the exception without naming it. Situation 81.7 puts a lengthy broken-glass delay after an icing and answers: "No. Only time a line change is permitted is when a penalty is assessed which affects the on-ice strength of either team. Rule 81.4." That is adverse authority on the size of 81.4's list, and it turns on the word the case for the exception turns on — only, which appears in neither rule. Read it as over-broad rather than as a ruling: the same sentence also excludes the injured player and the returning pulled goalkeeper, both of which 81.4 expressly permits, so it is a sentence shortened for a question about a delay rather than a considered narrowing of the list. Situation 81.8, quoted above, shortens the same way — "may not make any other substitutions" — and so do Situations 81.6 and 82.1, which say a team that iced the puck is "only permitted to make a substitution for the penalized player." It reads identically in the 2025/26 v1.0 and v1.1 Handbooks and in the 2026/27 one. None of it settles which of the two rules governs; all of it is one more reason not to plan on the fourth exception. Both rulebook editions read the same way, and the In-House Rules amend neither rule — checked in the 2025-26 and 2026-27 editions, neither of which contains any Rule 81 or Rule 82 substitution material — so nothing changes it for a British reader. ⚠️ So treat the exception as something to ask for rather than something to rely on: tell the official the blade has gone, and expect to be kept on the ice. And do not send a replacement over the boards on it. Neither the IIHF nor the NHL writes a penalty into the icing substitution bar itself — Hockey Canada does, and it is set out in the paragraph below — but under those two a change attempted after the referee has closed the change window is caught by IIHF Rule 82.2(V): the referee "will send the Players who have attempted to change back to their Players' bench" and then warns the coach that "any subsequent violations during the rest of the game (including overtime), shall result in a bench minor penalty for 'delaying the game'" — announced as "Delay of Game – Improper Line Change." That warning is one per team per game and it is not reserved for this: it covers every violation of 82.2(V), so a bench warned earlier for anything else has already spent it and the next attempt is the bench minor. It does not lapse late in the game either — 82.2(VIII) suspends only points (vi) and (vii) in the last two minutes and in overtime, and the Situation Handbook confirms as much at Situation 82.5, which has the officials enforce "points 82.2 (I) through (V)" there. ⚠️ Under the NHL it may be the bench minor with no warning at all, and the NHL book disagrees with itself about it. NHL 82.2(v) carries the IIHF's warning sentence word for word, but NHL Rule 82.3's opening paragraph reads "Any attempt by the visiting team to make a change after the Referee's signal shall result in the assessment of a bench minor penalty for delay of game" — and the book does not say which of its two provisions governs a visiting team. The IIHF has no counterpart to that sentence; its own 82.3 opens on last change instead, and puts a warning first.

USA Hockey allows a line change after an icing, and a timeout. Nothing in Rule 624 restricts substitution, Rule 204 permits a change at every stoppage, and Rule 636(f) attaches no icing condition to the one 60-second timeout each team gets — though 636(f) gives no timeout at all in a curfew game.

Do not read that as a free change, though. ⚠️ USA Hockey ties no substitution bar to icing, and it still closes the change window at every stoppage — with a warning and then a penalty behind it. Rule 204(a) gives the visiting team five seconds to substitute and then the home team five, and then shuts the window: "Once the line change procedure has been completed, no additional player substitutions shall be permitted until the face-off has been completed legally and play has resumed, except when a penalty or penalties are imposed that affect the on-ice strength of either or both teams." Two separate provisions enforce that, at two different penalty tiers, and both give a warning first. The second paragraph of Rule 204(a) reads "If there is any undue delay by either team in placing their lineup on the ice or changing players, the Referee shall warn the offending team. Any subsequent delay by the same team will result in a minor penalty for delay of game." Rule 610(g), inside Delaying the Game, reads "A bench minor penalty shall be assessed to any team, after warning by the Referee, that fails to place the correct number of players on the ice and commences play or that causes any delay by making additional substitutions or attempts to delay the game in any manner." So a minor under one and a bench minor under the other, and neither before a warning has been given. ⚠️ 204(a) does not say who serves its minor — the offender it names is "the offending team" — so do not assume it lands on the player who went over the boards. The book names the offence, too: the Summary of Penalties in both the Playing Rules and the Casebook lists it as "Continued improper line change during stoppages" and "Continued incorrect players on ice". And USA Hockey's Casebook puts the same on-ice remedy on an attempted late change as the IIHF does: at Rule 613, Situation 15, a false face-off occurs and either team then tries to change — "No. … The Referee must order all players attempting to change back to the players' bench. If there is any delay involved in getting the original line-up back on the ice, the Referee may assess a minor penalty for delaying the game, in which case substitutions shall be permitted." ⚠️ One caution on the citation, because the book's own apparatus is out by a letter. The Casebook cites this provision as "610(h)" and so does each Summary of Penalties, but the printed Rule 610 runs (a) to (g) and there is no (h) — the bench minor is 610(g), and that is the number to quote to an official. The practical position: you may change after your own icing under USA Hockey, and you may not change late. Late is the part that costs you.

Hockey Canada sits between the two: 6.7(d) bars the change in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option, and nowhere else, with carve-outs for replacing a goaltender pulled for an extra attacker, replacing an injured player, and any stoppage where a penalty was assessed. In those same three categories 6.7(d)(iii) expressly allows the timeout, with the icing team still barred from changing during it; below them Hockey Canada's 30-second timeout exists in minor and female hockey only in stop-time games and only "wherever the local Member gives approval", though Note 3 to Rule 6.17(e) makes it mandatory at Hockey Canada minor and female regional and national championships. Senior is at the Member's option, so if you play adult Hockey Canada hockey, assume you may not change until somebody tells you otherwise.

Rule 6.7(d) attaches no penalty of its own, but the book states one elsewhere: Rule 10.1 – Delay of Game names this situation expressly, listing "a team which, after a warning by the Referee, fails to place the correct number of players on the ice and commence play", and saying in terms that this "includes 'no change' situations" where "the offending team attempts to make a change" — cross-referring to Rule 6.1(f), which is the no-change-on-icing rule by name. 10.1(a) makes deliberate delay by a team a bench minor. So there is a warning first, by the rule's own words. Do not plan on spending it: a second change in a single stoppage is a bench minor under 6.1(c) with no warning at all. This is a real difference in how tired you are allowed to be.

Like USA Hockey, CARHA writes no icing substitution bar — Rule 65 says nothing about changing — but it limits every stoppage to one change, and closes the window. Rule 19(d) allows each team "only one change of player(s)" at a stoppage, and 19(e) makes a breach of the rule a bench minor. Under 19(g) the referee allows ten seconds for changes and then raises an arm; a change attempted after that is sent back to the bench the first time, and "[a]ny subsequent infraction" in the game draws the 19(e) bench minor. So after your own icing, change once and promptly, or stay on.

What this means for how you play

Icing is the tax on a bad clear. Getting the puck out of your zone matters, but getting it out legally matters more when you are tired, because the punishment for an illegal clear is a defensive-zone draw with your worst five players stuck on the ice and no way to rest.

From your own end under pressure, the safe clear is off the glass and out along the boards or high off the glass — the puck leaves the zone, no icing, and it is very hard to intercept. A rim around the boards that carries all the way down the ice is what gets iced.
Get the puck past the red line, on your stick, before you dump it. One extra stride is the whole difference between a legal dump-in and an icing. (In a CARHA league that divides the ice at the blue lines instead, ask your league where its line is.)
While you are actually below their on-ice strength you may ice it freely (Rule 81.6) — but not unconditionally. The test is a count and not a clock, so a penalty against them that takes you to 4-on-4 ends the exemption even though you are still killing, and both carve-outs change what a kill can do on top of that. The NHL withdraws the exemption once a major has expired with nobody on the penalty bench to come out — that carve-out does not bite during the major itself, because Rule 20.3 lets the box stay empty until a stoppage before the penalty ends, though not where minors are on the clock alongside the major, where the substitute is due "immediately"; USA Hockey grants it only at Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult (Rule 624(b)(1)), so below those levels a shorthanded team is called for icing like anyone else. Both are set out under The full wave-off list above. Where the exemption does apply, shorthanded teams should use it ruthlessly: it is the single biggest structural advantage the kill has. See Special Teams.
As the defending team chasing a dump-in under hybrid icing, the race is to the puck — but the linesperson's judgement is locked in by the time the first skate reaches the dot, so the first half of the race is the half that counts. Beating your opponent to the dot does not by itself decide it; being clearly on course to reach the puck first does. If you are clearly beaten, do not run yourself into the end boards for nothing; if you are clearly winning it, commit to retrieving it. And a race still too close to call at the dot is icing. ⚠️ However the race ends, how you arrive at the wall is the part that hurts people — and this holds in every league, checking or not. Never take that contact with your back to the boards, and never duck. Get your skates parallel to the wall instead, take it on your forearm and hip, head up and chin off your chest. Those are two prohibitions against two different injuries: a turned back makes it a hit from behind, which you can neither see nor brace for, and a chin tucked to the chest straightens the cervical spine — and that second injury, from head-on contact with the boards or a goal post with the head down, is the one USA Hockey's Heads Up Hockey guide says "can occur at walking speed." Body Contact and Battles is the full treatment.
As the goalie, be careful behind your net on a potential icing. Under NHL and IIHF rules, merely skating toward the puck waves the icing off and gives the other team a live puck in your corner (Rule 81.3). If you want the icing, stay put. The exception is when you are legitimately heading to the bench for an extra attacker and make no attempt on the puck — that does not wave it off.
Do not casually poke a dumped puck as it goes by. Any touch by the defending team, including the goalie, kills the icing. On the other hand, that is exactly the trick to use when the other team is stuck and you would rather keep playing than take the faceoff.
Boarding note: unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious icing or offside play that drives him into the boards is explicitly boarding (Rule 41.1), and the clause is verbatim in three books (NHL 41.1, IIHF 41.1, Hockey Canada 7.2). USA Hockey reaches only the icing half, at 624(d), which penalises "unnecessary contact with an opponent who is attempting to play the puck in an obvious icing situation" — no offside limb, and it does not name boarding. Icing races are not a licence to hit.

4. Penalties

The types, and what each does to your team

Type	Time	What it does to your team on the ice
Minor	2:00	You play short; no substitute (Rule 16.1)
Bench minor	2:00	You play short; any player except the goalkeeper serves it; no substitute (Rule 17.1)
Double minor	4:00	You play short; no substitute (Rule 18.1)
Major	5:00	You play short; no substitute (Rule 20.1)
Misconduct	10:00	A substitute goes straight on (Rules 22.1, 22.3), so you play short only when that player also takes a minor, major or match penalty
Game misconduct	Rest of game	A substitute replaces him (Rule 23.1), so you play short only for a minor, major or match assessed alongside it
Match penalty	Rest of game + 5:00 served	You play short for 5:00; a teammate serves it and a substitute comes on after five minutes (Rule 21.2)
Penalty shot	—	Nobody is short and nobody is substituted: it is a restored scoring chance, not a time penalty (Rule 24.1, and Rule 24 writes no short-handed clause)

Minor penalty (Rule 16.1) — two minutes, no substitute. Your team plays 5-on-4.

Bench minor (Rule 17.1) — two minutes served by any player except the goalkeeper, designated by the coach through the captain. Used for team infractions with no single culprit: too many men, delay of game by the bench, and a second faceoff violation by the same team on the same draw.

Double minor (Rule 18.1) — four minutes. Used for high-sticking that draws blood (Rule 60.3) — that is the NHL's tier; the other three books reach a major and a game misconduct, and the NHL itself has a match penalty at 60.4 — see the high-sticking bullet below; and butt-ending or spearing attempts (58.2, 62.2) — NHL tiers, and the IIHF and Hockey Canada give a double minor for those attempts too. USA Hockey is the one book of four that does not: see the stick-foul bullets below. It behaves as two separate two-minute penalties: if the other team scores in the first two minutes, only that half is washed out and the player serves the remaining two (Rule 18.2).

Major (Rule 20.1) — five minutes, no substitute, and — this is the key difference from a minor — the penalty does not end when the other team scores (Rule 20.2). The full five minutes are served no matter how many goals go in. ⚠️ Two of the books this page reads never make you wait for a count: under Hockey Canada and CARHA Hockey a major is an ejection. Hockey Canada Rule 4.4 defines the penalty that way — "A major penalty is a five-minute time penalty. Any player assessed a Major penalty will also be assessed a Game Misconduct penalty" — and 4.4(a) sends that player "to the dressing room for the remainder of the game", with no exception written anywhere. ⚠️ And the dressing room is not where it ends. The same sentence continues — "and will be reported to the appropriate Member or league for further action" — on every major, with no injury or violence threshold. The report is mandatory; what the Member or league does with it is theirs. Hockey Canada writes no rule headed Supplementary Discipline, and the document that says what "further action" costs is not held here, so no tariff for it is stated on this page. CARHA Rule 30(a) reads the same — "ruled off the ice for the remainder of the game (Major penalty plus Game Misconduct)" — with one exception for a skater, an accidental high stick that injures nobody (the Note to 62(b) restores the game misconduct when it injures), and 32(d) adds an automatic one-game suspension, at least, for every major other than an accidental high stick. USA Hockey keeps a bare major in its definition (403(a)) and almost nowhere else: its Summary of Penalties lists no major only category at all, every major-bearing offence in it pairing the major with a game misconduct, and Rule 404(b) makes any game misconduct cost the team's next game as well. ⚠️ And its five minutes are not fixed — Rule 403's Note authorises affiliates to cut a major to 3:00 or 4:00 where the periods are short, in every classification but adult. In the IIHF book the one infraction whose first major is guaranteed to leave you in the game is being the unwilling combatant in a fight, the single row of Table 5, "Summary of major penalties (without a game misconduct possible)" (46.6). So take “five minutes, then back on” as the NHL's answer and the PWHL's, and find out what a major costs in your book before you take one. A third major in one game is an automatic game misconduct (NHL Rule 20.4), and a major that injures an opponent's face or head brings a game misconduct with it. 🇬🇧 Both of those are NHL wording, and the IIHF ejects you sooner. IIHF Rule 20.4 sets the trigger at the second: "An 'Automatic Game Misconduct' shall be applied to any Player who has been assessed a second major penalty, or a second misconduct penalty in the same game." Two ten-minute misconducts are a trigger the NHL book does not have at all — IIHF Rule 22.1 repeats it in the misconduct rule, and NHL Rule 22 has no equivalent sentence — and the IIHF rule carries no face-or-head-injury clause. One major can be enough, and that is true in both books: NHL 20.4 and IIHF 20.4 each add an automatic game misconduct "whenever a player is assessed a major penalty for any of the infractions listed in the Reference Tables" — the NHL's Table 5, the IIHF's Table 6 — that IIHF number is the 2025/26 book's, and the 2026/27 edition merges its Tables 5, 6 and 7 into one Table 5 carrying the same entries. The IIHF's is unconditional — meaning no injury is required, though whether to call the major at all is still the referee's judgement — and Table 6 lists twenty — three of them fighting entries, so against the NHL's nineteen rather than its thirteen non-fighting rows — checking from behind, cross-checking, slashing, hooking, high-sticking, slew-footing, clipping and an illegal check to the head among them. The NHL's is neither the same list nor unconditional, and the book flags the tension itself: 20.4's second sentence attaches no condition, while six of its thirteen non-fighting rows require an injury, three of those to the face or head. Table 5 carries a footnote — keyed to two asterisked cells rather than printed under the whole table, and which two rows they sit on does not survive the text extraction — "The individual rules state that the automatic game misconduct only applies if major is assessed due to an injury. However, a major penalty cannot be assessed on its own." The NHL book writes no major at all for high-sticking, slew-footing or an illegal check to the head — and that is the NHL alone, not the international standard. All three reach a match penalty there instead — 60.4, 52.2 and 48.5 — and 52.2's match penalty for slew-footing is mandatory and unconditional. ⚠️ 60.4 requires that a player "attempts to or deliberately injures"; 48.5 is discretionary and narrower still. An illegal check to the head short of an attempt to injure reaches no tier above the minor on the ice. §10 sets the two books' triggers side by side.

So under the book British hockey runs on, your second major of the night ends your game, and so do two misconducts — but the twenty are not your only first-major risk. IIHF Table 7 — the 2025/26 book's number, merged with Tables 5 and 6 into the 2026/27 edition's single Table 5, where these five are the rows ticked in both its "MAJOR ONLY" and "MAJOR + GMP" columns — is headed "Summary of major penalties that result in a game misconduct based on the Referee's judgement", and it lists boarding (41.4), charging (42.4), elbowing (45.4), interference (56.5) and tripping (57.4). On any of those the referee may end your game on the first major. Below adult level in Britain it is stricter again, and may bite on the first major: UK and England Rules covers the In-House Rules' junior and women's application of IIHF Rule 201.1, and the hedge that goes with it. Each of the Table 7 five is written as a single major-plus-game-misconduct act — 41.4 reads "may assess a major and a game misconduct penalty". Table 7's heading rests it on the referee's judgement, so this is not beyond doubt; play as though the ejection follows the major. ⚠️ And in the Elite League, a boarding, charging or elbowing major that injures a face or a head carries the ejection automatically. The EIHL Casebook writes the same sentence under boarding (41), charging (42) and elbowing: "When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed." Injure a face or a head with one of those majors there and the ejection is mandatory. Under the IIHF book all majors other than a Rule 46 fighting situation are reviewed on-ice by video (Rule 20.6) — 46.5 sucker-punching being the one fighting call that can be reviewed. ⚠️ Not in EIH or SIHA competition: In-House Rule 37 removes on-ice video review there entirely — "and may not be used by referees, official scorers, timekeepers, or any other game official" — and the In-House Rules repeat the bar in nine further provisions across eight other rules, 18.4 among them. There is no second look during the game there; the call on the ice is the one that ejects you. The Elite League is the exception — its Casebook keeps video review and the Coach's Challenge, as section 2's video review note sets out.

Misconduct (Rule 22.1) — ten minutes for the player, but a substitute goes straight on, so the team does not play shorthanded (Rule 22.3). ⚠️ The two books word 22.3 differently, and the difference is a tier: the IIHF's reads "unless they also receive a minor or major penalty", the NHL's "a minor, major or match penalty" — the match penalty being the tier the IIHF book does not have at all. This is the most commonly misunderstood penalty in hockey: a ten-minute misconduct costs your team nothing on the scoreboard directly, it costs you a third of the game. A player whose misconduct expires stays in the box until the next stoppage. 🇬🇧 A second misconduct in the same game is not another ten minutes — it ends your game, under the IIHF (Rule 22.1: "An 'Automatic Game Misconduct' shall be applied to any Player who has been assessed a second (2nd) misconduct penalty in the same game") and under USA Hockey (Rule 404(a): "For the second misconduct penalty assessed to the same player during the same game, a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to that player in lieu of the second misconduct penalty"). The NHL book contains no such trigger.

Game misconduct (Rule 23.1) — the player is gone for the balance of the game, a substitute replaces him, and the team is not shorthanded. Ten minutes go on his record and the incident is reported for possible supplementary discipline. 🇬🇧 The IIHF's figure is not ten but twenty — its 23.1 reads "Twenty" minutes "are applied in the records to the Player incurring a game misconduct penalty", against the NHL's "Ten minutes are applied in the league records to the player incurring a game misconduct penalty."

Match penalty (Rule 21.1) — the most severe on-ice sanction. Imposed on any player who deliberately attempts to injure, or deliberately injures, an opponent. The player is sent to the dressing room immediately — that much is 21.1 — and the rest is Rule 21.2: five minutes are served by a designated teammate, "a player (excluding a goalkeeper) to be designated by the Coach of the offending team through the playing Captain", a substitute may replace him "after five" minutes "playing time has elapsed", and the player is automatically suspended until the league has ruled. Like majors, match penalties are reviewed on-ice (Rule 21.5). ⚠️ If you play in Britain, this penalty does not exist for you. The IIHF book writes no match penalty at all. So where a bullet below names a match penalty as the ceiling, your ceiling is the major plus automatic game misconduct in that same rule — 60.4 for high-sticking, 48.3 for a check to the head — and not IIHF Rule 21, which is Dangerous Actions and reaches only "an action that is not covered by the playing rules". The effect on the ice is the same either way: off for the balance of the game, five minutes served by a teammate. What you do not inherit is the NHL's automatic suspension until the league has ruled — the IIHF refers the case onward instead. The onward route runs to a separate book, reproduced nowhere in the Rule Book and not consulted here. IIHF Rules 23.3 to 23.6 name four disciplinary-measure categories — General, Abuse of Officials, Stick Infractions, Physical Infractions — and each says only that "The respective process is outlined in the IIHF Disciplinary Code." Rules 40.2 to 40.4 do the same for abuse of officials, under the headings "Supplementary Discipline – Suspension – Category I, II and III": they define the conduct in each category and set no suspension length for any of them, and 40.5 adds only the process, by which the referees decide the category after the game and the case goes to IIHF Disciplinary. The headings are in the book; the tariff is not. Do not read that as leniency. IIHF Rule 20.7 requires the referee to report every major penalty, and the In-House Rules give the EIH Department of Player Safety or the SIHA Disciplinary Committee, whichever is your home association's, power to impose further suspensions "regardless of whether such offences were penalised by the Referee at the time." Not automatic; also not off the table.

Penalty shot (Rule 24) — not a time penalty at all but a restored scoring chance. The puck is placed at centre ice and the designated player skates in alone. Rules that catch people out: no rebounds (except off post or crossbar and then off the goalie straight in); the puck must be kept in motion toward the goal; the spin-o-rama is banned — but only by three of the six books. The NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL stop the shot dead and award no goal; Hockey Canada expressly allows it, its Note 1 to Interpretation 5 on Rule 4.11(b) ruling a 360° turn "will be considered legal, if the puck continues its overall motion towards the opponent's goal line", and USA Hockey (Rule 406(c)) and CARHA (Rule 35(a)) write no rule either way — neither book mentions a 360° turn at all, asking only that the puck be kept in motion towards the goal line, so the answer there is simply not written down. A lacrosse-style "Michigan" is permitted under all of them that address it: the NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL require that the puck is never raised above shoulder height and is not released above the crossbar, while Hockey Canada caps it at shoulder height and sets no crossbar condition at all (Interpretation 6 on Rule 4.11(b)); the goalie must stay in his crease until the shooter touches the puck. If the shot is awarded for what would have been a minor, no minor is served regardless of the outcome (Rule 24.6).

Coincidental penalties (Rule 19) — when equal penalties are given to both teams, they cancel for on-ice strength. But there is a subtlety worth knowing: one minor to each team at the same stoppage, with nothing else on the clock, is played 4-on-4 (Rule 19.1). If a team is already shorthanded, the coincidental minors are served with immediate substitution and the strength stays as it was. 🇬🇧 That is the NHL rule. IIHF Rule 19.1 requires immediate substitution for an equal number of minors and the teams stay five a side — so in Britain this particular situation is 5-on-5. Britain still reaches 4-on-4 by other routes at the same stoppage.

Stick fouls

These are the calls that come from using the stick as a tool against a player instead of against the puck. As a group they are the ones to expect most often in adult recreational hockey — coaching craft rather than a count, because nobody has counted recreational-league calls, and the one league that has been counted does not settle it: the NHL figures rank single infractions rather than stick fouls as a group, and the infraction they put top is tripping, which sits in no book's stick-foul category — NHL Rule 57.1 names "the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow", so the stick is one of six ways to commit it (Body Contact and Battles) — for one reason: they are what a tired or beaten player does instead of skating.

Hooking — NHL Rule 55, IIHF Rule 55, USA Hockey Rule 623, Hockey Canada Rule 8.2; the numbers do not travel. Using the stick to restrain an opponent. ⚠️ The two things you have probably been told are both unsafe. "Only stick-on-stick, so it cannot be hooking" — the NHL and IIHF do exempt stick-to-stick contact, but only "when a player is checking another", and USA Hockey and Hockey Canada both name the opponent's stick as a hookable surface. And "no tugging motion, so it cannot be hooking" — the tug is in USA Hockey's and Hockey Canada's definitions and appears nowhere in NHL Rule 55, which tests restraint instead: 55.1 reads "Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent." ⚠️ What that myth is built on is the NHL's signal rather than its rule. Rule 29.18 describes the hooking signal as "a tugging motion with both arms as if pulling something from in front toward the stomach" — the gesture that tells the arena what was called, not the test for calling it. Under NHL Rule 55 the test is restraint, and a hook with no tug in it is still a hook. Rule 56.1 in the NHL and IIHF reaches a player "who does not have body position on his opponent" and uses the stick "to impede or prevent his opponent from moving freely on the ice" — the NHL's wording, the IIHF's the same but for its pronouns and the quotation marks it puts round "body position", "freely" and "hooking" — with no tug at all. ⚠️ A stick on the hands is hooking in three books of four — but only the IIHF's is flat about it. USA Hockey 623 needs the contact to take "away the ability for the opponent to pass or shoot the puck with a normal amount of force", and Hockey Canada expressly permits the stick lift itself: Interpretation 1 to 8.2(a) allows using your stick to lift an opponent's "for the purpose of making a play on the puck" and penalises it only where it contacts the hands "and impedes their ability to pass, shoot, receive, or otherwise propel the puck". USA Hockey permits it too, and on a broader footing — asked whether a player may lift an opponent's stick without being penalised under the Standard of Play guidelines, its Casebook answers "Yes. A player may lift the opponent's stick at any time provided they do not impede their progress", and calls it "a good defensive play" (Appendix VI, Standard of Play Casebook, Situation 2). ⚠️ The two permissions are conditioned on different things: Hockey Canada's turns on your purpose — a play on the puck — and USA Hockey's on the effect, that you do not impede their progress. And neither is permission to take it at the hands. The same Casebook, at Rule 623, Situation 1, is asked whether a player who "hooks the stick of another player causing them to lose possession of the puck" has done something legal and answers "No" — "the fact they hooked the stick indicates that they impeded the opponent's progress" — before allowing that "a stick lift or stick check where the focus is on the puck and preventing the opponent from playing the puck are both considered good defensive plays." ⚠️ So take the lift lower: blade under their shaft below their bottom hand, lifted up rather than sideways — that is what keeps it off the hands. And lift; do not chop. USA Hockey's Standard of Play singles out "hard slashes to the upper portion of the stick (just below the hands) of an opponent, with no attempt to legally play the puck" for strict enforcement — the same few inches of shaft you are aiming at. ⚠️ And lift under their shaft, not through it. "Up rather than sideways" is the right cue and it is also the direction the danger lies in, because the stick you are lifting ends near their face. Hockey Canada writes two escalations for this exact technique, in the list of interpretations printed under Rule 9.5: an "attempted lifting of the opponent's stick, which results in accidental contact to the head or neck area" and causes injury is a double Minor. And the second covers "any aggressive, reckless, negligent or forceful action of the stick (e.g. pitchfork action in lifting the stick or hooking an opponent) that results in contact to the neck or head area, causing injury, will result in a Major penalty and Game Misconduct being assessed." Injury is the trigger on both limbs, and the second names the pitchfork lift by name. ⚠️ Be careful about the scope, because the book is less explicit than it looks. That list states no division of its own. What surrounds it does: it is printed inside Rule 9.5, titled High-Sticking – Junior/Senior, whose (a) opens "In Junior and Senior divisions" and whose two numbered Interpretations both confine their rulings to those divisions in terms. The major limb assesses its penalty under "Rule 7.7 – Head Contact – Junior/Senior". Reading the list as Junior/Senior is therefore an inference from its setting, not a scope the list itself states — defensible, and worth knowing it is an inference. ⚠️ And it is not relief if you play minor or female hockey, where Rule 7.6 – Head Contact governs instead and is no softer. It opens "There is no type of legal contact to the head, face, or neck", and says it "supersedes any other rules" except fighting. At 7.6(b) it reaches a major plus a game misconduct both at the referee's discretion "based on the degree of violence of the impact" — with nobody hurt — and mandatorily where a head-contact infraction that would otherwise be a minor injures the opponent. A third paragraph in the same clause makes that pair mandatory for a cross-check above the shoulders "whether or not injury results". And 7.6(a) puts a double Minor on intentional contact to the head, face or neck with any part of the body or equipment, with a Game Ejection on a third penalty under 7.6(a). And a minor is not the ceiling. The NHL needs an injury for its major; the IIHF does not, reaching a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment with nobody hurt, which is the British reader's exposure. USA Hockey 623(b) makes that mandatory on the same no-injury trigger and 623(c) reaches a match penalty; Hockey Canada 8.2(b)'s mandatory major turns on injury instead, and 8.2(c) bars a match penalty outright. Read your own book's tiers before you rely on any of this. See Body Contact and Battles, which covers the stick-lift technique and its cues.
Slashing (Rule 61) — swinging the stick at an opponent, contact or not. Any forceful chop on the body, on the opponent's stick, or on or near the hands that is not an attempt to play the puck is slashing — that enumeration is the NHL's and the IIHF's, with USA Hockey carrying a shortened form of it. Hockey Canada's 9.3 defines slashing only as "hitting an opponent with a stick while holding the stick with one or both hands" and enumerates nothing. ⚠️ The shin-pad carve-out is not. "Non-aggressive stick contact to the pant or front of the shin pads should not be penalized as slashing" is NHL 61.1 and IIHF 61.1. USA Hockey writes no such exemption and instructs referees to penalise any player who "swings their stick at any opposing player (whether or not contact is made)". And Hockey Canada's substitute is narrower — it exempts "tapping the stick of the puck-carrier" for the sole purpose of gaining the puck — not a tap on the body, and not a tap on a player who does not have it. ⚠️ The ceilings diverge sharply. The NHL must assess a major where injury occurs (61.3), with a game misconduct mandatory alongside any slashing major (61.5) and a match penalty at 61.4. The IIHF has no mandatory-major-on-injury clause at all, reaching a major plus an automatic game misconduct only for reckless endangerment (61.3), and no match penalty at all, so that pair is its ceiling inside the game — its 61.6 is Disciplinary Measures, allowing Supplementary Discipline under Rule 28 at the Proper Authorities' discretion. USA Hockey 634(b) is mandatory for reckless endangerment with a match at 634(c). Hockey Canada 9.3(b) runs on two limbs, and the first of them needs nobody hurt either — a major plus a game misconduct "At the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact", and that same pair again where a slash that would otherwise be a minor injures. A match penalty sits at 9.3(c), and 9.3(d) and 9.3(e) mean no misconduct may be assessed for slashing but a game misconduct must accompany any major. Two USA Hockey limbs worth knowing: 634(d) reaches a slash "in the course of an altercation" on top of the fighting rule. And 634(e) is a minor for stick contact with a goalkeeper who has "covered or caught" the puck in their crease, "regardless of whether or not the Referee has stopped play" — the whack at a smothered puck. ⚠️ Hockey Canada adds the case in which a slash most often becomes serious, in junior and senior hockey. Its interpretations to Rule 9.5 — its High-Sticking – Junior/Senior rule — make "a slashing action [that] glances off the upper body and deflects upwards to make contact with the head or neck area, causing injury" a major plus a game misconduct under Rule 7.7. In minor and female hockey the route is 7.6.
Tripping — NHL Rule 57, IIHF Rule 57, USA Hockey Rule 639, Hockey Canada Rule 8.6; the numbers do not travel, and the rule sets differ more here than almost anywhere. Placing your stick or your body so as to trip an opponent. Five things a reader should carry, and one to look up; the rest belongs in your own book. ⚠️ A stumble that never becomes a fall is still a penalty. The NHL and the IIHF each define tripping as "trip or fall" and then write their minor for "trip and fall" — an unresolved conflict inside those two books, and no interpretation available here settles it. The IIHF Situation Handbook's four Rule 57 situations, 57.1 to 57.4, are all penalty-shot questions, and none of them reaches the point. The NHL's minor "shall be imposed", where the IIHF's is "at their discretion… based on the severity of the infraction". USA Hockey's own Casebook settles for that book what the other two leave open, at Rule 639, Situation 1: "For a tripping penalty to be assessed, must the fouled player fall to the ice? No. … it must be clearly obvious their progress was impeded and a competitive advantage was gained as a result of the tripping action." (That situation describes its rule as using "trip or fall". USA Hockey Rule 639, Note 1 in fact reads "lose balance or fall" — which does not change the answer.) And Hockey Canada penalises "any player who trips an opposing player". Treat the stumble as a penalty. ⚠️ Touching the puck first does not save you the minor in the NHL or the IIHF. It saves you the penalty shot; the minor still stands. ⚠️ But those two books write one relief the other two do not, and it runs the opposite way from the rest of this bullet. NHL 57.1 and IIHF 57.1 carry the same two sentences word for word — "Accidental trips which occur simultaneously with a completed play will not be penalized. Accidental trips occurring simultaneously with or after a stoppage of play will not be penalized." Neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes any equivalent. USA Hockey and Hockey Canada do give the puck-first relief, on separate terms set out under Common Mistakes — but in neither book does it reach slew-footing, which is the mechanism that puts the other player's head on the ice, and the two books draw the boundary in different places. Hockey Canada's relief stops at its own rule: 8.6 says in terms that it "does not apply to actions defined under Rule 8.7 – Clipping or Rule 8.8 – Slew-Footing", so a clip is outside it. USA Hockey's Rule 639 is titled Tripping/Clipping/Leg Checking/Slew Footing and covers all four together, so its relief — withheld "under this rule" — can reach a clip. What it cannot reach is slew footing, which 639(a) excepts outright and whose minimum under 639(b) is a major plus a game misconduct. Its Casebook is blunt about that floor, at Rule 639, Situation 5: "A minor penalty is NOT an option for slew footing." ⚠️ Hockey Canada tiers the same act at the opposite end, and its double minor for slew-footing is a floor rather than a ceiling. A reader who takes it as a ceiling will misjudge both books. Rule 8.8(a) assesses the double minor and 8.8(b), (d) and (e) then forbid the major, the misconduct and the game misconduct — "No Major penalty may be assessed for slew-footing" — but 8.8(c) goes straight past the forbidden major to a match penalty, at the referee's discretion on the "degree of violence of impact (including the impact with the ice, goal, or boards)", and mandatory for "any player who injures an opponent by a slew-footing infraction". So slew-footing is a major plus a game misconduct at its lowest under USA Hockey, and under Hockey Canada either four minutes or a match penalty. ⚠️ Back to the plain trip, and here only the NHL has no ejection tier. Rule 57 stops at a minor. The IIHF, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada all reach a major plus a game misconduct, so a British reader can be thrown out for a trip in a way an NHL viewer never sees — and even the NHL gets there through Rule 21.1 for a player who "deliberately attempts to injure… in any manner." The reason those tiers run so high is not the trip itself: a player tripped at speed may be unable to protect himself and can go into the ice or the boards head first, which is why Hockey Canada grades a clip on the degree of violence "including the impact with the ice or boards" and USA Hockey 639(b) turns on a player who "recklessly endangers an opponent as a result of tripping, clipping or leg checking." And the thing to look up is the one exemption most players assume they have: of the four books here only the NHL and the IIHF write an accidental-trip exemption — the PWHL's Rule 58.1 carries the same two sentences — and only for a trip simultaneous with a completed play, or "simultaneously with or after" a stoppage. USA Hockey and Hockey Canada write no accident exemption — which is a different question from the puck-first relief above, and they do not answer it the same way. Get the puck, not the man.
High-sticking (Rule 60) — contacting an opponent above the shoulders with your stick. ⚠️ Some books add a floor to that — that the opponent's shoulders be at waist level or higher — and which IIHF book you are under decides whether yours does. The NHL has it twice: 60.1 defines a high stick as one which "contacts an opponent above the shoulders, provided their shoulders are at waist level or higher", and 60.3 assesses the double minor for contact with the "neck, face or head (above the height of the opponent's waist)". The IIHF Official Rule Book 2026/27 carries both of those sentences in the same words. The IIHF Official Rule Book 2025/26 (Version 1.1) carries neither. Its 60.1 tests a stick "carried above the height of the opponent's shoulders", its 60.3 a Player who "carries or holds any part of their stick above the shoulders and makes contact", and the word "waist" appears once in that entire book, about goalkeeper pant padding. It appears four times in the 2026/27 book, at 60.1, at 60.3, in the same padding rule, and in that book's own list of rule changes. ⚠️ And 60.3 changed in the opposite direction to 60.1 between the editions, so do not carry one direction across to the other. The 2025/26 double minor has two limbs and needs both: the Player must "carr[y] or hold[] any part of their stick above the shoulders" and make the contact with the neck, face or head. The 2026/27 clause deletes the carry limb and asks only where the contact landed. So under the newer book a stick you never raised above shoulder height can still cost you four minutes, where under the older one that clause does not reach it at all. The 60.1 change narrows what counts as a high stick; the 60.3 change widens what the double minor catches — and a reader who has just learned the first will carry the wrong direction into the second. (Neither 60.3 says whose shoulders its carry limb is measured against; 60.1 measures a high stick against the opponent's.) 🇬🇧 In the Elite League the floor applies, because the EIHL Casebook writes no Rule 60 and makes the 2026 - 2027 IIHF book the ruling for everything it does not write — so an Elite League player is under the 2026/27 book's 60.1 and 60.3. That is not a licence to stick a crouching opponent, for the reason given below: no book's 60.2 carries the floor, and 60.2 is the clause that imposes the minor. ⚠️ Anywhere else in Britain, which of the two is yours is worth asking rather than assuming, because the IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 name both. The cover says "the Current IIHF Rule Book", the Introduction "the latest IIHF Official Rule Book (Version 1.1, published July 2025)" — and Version 1.1 of July 2025 is the 2025/26 book. See UK and England Rules. USA Hockey Rule 621 and Hockey Canada Rule 9.5 write no waist floor in either case — but neither writes a bare "above the shoulders" test either. Both measure against the "normal height of the shoulders": USA Hockey's Rule 621 Note against "the opponent's", Hockey Canada at 9.5 and again at 9.5(a). ⚠️ Whether "normal" means the shoulders where they actually are or the shoulders of a player standing upright is a question neither book answers for these rules, so do not read it either way. Hockey Canada defines the phrase exactly once in the whole book — Rule 6.9(a) Note 1, "The 'normal' height of the shoulders refers to when a player is standing fully upright" — but 6.9 is high-sticking the puck, and the book nowhere says that definition travels to 9.5; USA Hockey defines "normal" nowhere at all. And the floor is in no book's 60.2 — the clause that actually imposes the minor, word-for-word identical in the NHL book and in both IIHF editions: "Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed." So do not plan a stick on a crouching opponent on the strength of the floor. ⚠️ What reaches a crouching opponent in the two North American books is head-contact law rather than the high-sticking rule, and that law does not turn on stick height at all. USA Hockey Rule 620 makes head contact "the action of a player contacting an opponent in the head, face or neck with any part of the player's body, equipment or stick", puts the onus "on the player delivering the check", and starts at a minor plus a misconduct (620(a)); Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 opens "There is no type of legal contact to the head, face, or neck" and requires that "[r]egardless of the circumstances, players must be penalized for contact with an opponent's head, face, or neck at all times." And no IIHF edition protects a bent-over opponent outright either: 60.1 permits "accidental contact" on a centre bent over at a face-off in both editions. ⚠️ Where the floor does apply, the waist that decides it is the struck player's, not yours. Both of the 60.3 clauses that carry it read "above the height of the opponent's waist". The IIHF Situation Handbook 2026/27 puts the case at Situation 60.13 — a stick-lift attempt that misses a player bent over digging the puck out of the corner and catches them in the face, the striker's own stick "only slightly above the height of their waist". The answer is "Yes, this is a minor (or double-minor) penalty for high-sticking. The key here is that the opposing player was hit in the neck/face/head with the opponent's stick, at or above the height of the waist of the player being struck." That Situation is in the 2026/27 Handbook and not in the 2025/26 one, and the Handbook ranks itself below the rule book on its own Foreword. A stick below your own waist is a defence in no book. ⚠️ But do not read Hockey Canada Rule 9.5 as its general high-sticking rule — it is titled "High-Sticking – Junior/Senior" and 9.5(a) opens "In Junior and Senior divisions". Hockey Canada has no general high-sticking rule at all. In minor and female hockey contact above the shoulders falls to Rule 7.6 – Head Contact, which the book says "supersedes any other rules" bar fighting, and which is considerably harsher than a minor. Its 7.6(a) gives a minor for accidental contact, a double minor for intentional contact, and a game ejection on a third head-contact penalty in the same game (4.8(b)). A normal windup or follow-through on a shot is permitted, and so is accidental contact on a centre bent over at a faceoff — but only under the NHL and IIHF books, which carry both carve-outs in the same words (IIHF 60.1). Neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes either one, and neither does CARHA Hockey, and Hockey Canada expressly reverses the follow-through: Interpretation 1 to Rule 9.5(a) assesses a minor where a follow-through hits an opponent above the shoulder with no injury. A wild swing at a bouncing puck is never permitted — the carve-out covers a normal shooting motion and nothing wilder than one. Injury (drawing blood or otherwise) makes it a double minor (Rule 60.3). ⚠️ A double minor is not the ceiling in any book, including the NHL's. What the NHL lacks is a major tier, not an ejection: NHL Rule 60.4 assesses a match penalty where a player "attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent with a high-stick". Note that 60.4 is a different rule in each book — the NHL's is that match penalty, the IIHF's is a major plus an automatic game misconduct. IIHF Rule 60.4 (the British reader's book) lets the referee assess "a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct penalty" where a player "recklessly endangers their opponent by 'high-sticking'". USA Hockey Rule 621(b) makes that major-plus-game-misconduct mandatory for reckless endangerment and 621(c) allows a match penalty. Hockey Canada bars both tiers inside its high-sticking rule — 9.5(b) "No Major penalty may be assessed for high-sticking", and 9.5(c) the same for a match penalty — and routes the case to its head-contact rules instead: 7.7 in junior and senior, 7.6 in minor and female. ⚠️ And 7.7 routes part of it straight back, so the traffic runs both ways. Its Interpretation 2 to Rule 7.7(a) provides that in Junior and Senior divisions a minor is assessed for head contact "with a minimal degree of violence" and that "[t]his should not be penalized as Head Contact but under another appropriate rule (Roughing, High-Sticking, etc.)" — naming high-sticking itself. So 9.5 sends the major and the match tier up to 7.7, and 7.7 sends minimal-violence contact back down to 9.5(a), where the floor is a bare minor rather than 7.7(a)'s minor-plus-misconduct. The two destinations differ, but they are mandatory on different triggers — neither is simply the harsher rule. 7.6(b) is discretionary on violence (the referee "may assess" a major) and mandatory on injury: a major plus game misconduct must follow where head contact that would otherwise be a minor injures. 7.7(b) inverts that — mandatory on violence, since a major plus game misconduct "will be assessed for any Head Contact infraction with a high degree of violence" whether or not anyone is hurt — and it has no injury clause of 7.6(b)'s shape. Its injury limb requires a head injury caused by the glass, ice or boards — narrower in what it requires, but wider in what it reaches, since it covers any infraction where "a player is fouled or hit illegally" and not only head contact. One further difference is real: 7.7(a) with 7.7(d) makes the floor a minor plus a misconduct, where 7.6(a) starts at a bare minor and 7.6(d) bars the ten-minute Misconduct — not the ejection, since 7.6(e) makes a game misconduct mandatory with any 7.6(b) major. But 7.7's preamble lets minimal-violence contact be penalised "with a minor penalty for roughing, charging, or another appropriate penalty" — an open list. 7.6 forecloses that leniency in terms, requiring that "[r]egardless of the circumstances" head contact be penalised "at all times". It requires too that "any foul that results in contact to the head must be penalized as Head Contact." And two limbs distinguish nothing at all: the cross-check clause is word-for-word the same in both. So is the match tier's first limb — 7.6(c) and 7.7(c) both reach a match penalty for hitting a player "in such a way that the player is unable to protect or defend themselves". If anything 7.6(c) is the wider, reaching a player who "attempts to or deliberately injures" where 7.7(c) reads "deliberately attempts to injure". Note also what 9.5(b) and 9.5(c) do not say: they name 7.7 and nothing else, so the route to 7.6 is read from 7.6's own preamble, which "supersedes any other rules" bar fighting. The tier is relocated, not removed, and §10 has the row. ⚠️ Whether carrying the stick high is punishable on its own is the second thing the two IIHF editions split on. The NHL's 60.1 makes the test contact above the shoulders, and the IIHF 2026/27 60.1 makes it contact too, in the NHL's words. The IIHF 2025/26 (Version 1.1) 60.1 instead defines a high stick as one "carried above the height of the opponent's shoulders", with no contact element at all. And Hockey Canada's 9.5 preamble says a penalty "may be assessed regardless of whether or not contact occurs." Hockey Canada reads furthest on its face — though 9.5(a), the only clause that actually assesses a penalty, requires contact, so the text does not settle it. ⚠️ And USA Hockey answers the question twice, in opposite directions. Its playing rule requires contact: 621's Note defines high sticking as where a player "carries the stick above the normal height of the opponent's shoulders and makes contact with the opponent". Its Casebook then asks "Must contact with an opponent occur in order for the Referee to assess a penalty for high sticking?", answers "No.", and adds both that "[i]t is not a requirement that a stick make contact above shoulder height for high sticking to be called" and that the call must be made "[w]henever a player raises their stick above their shoulders in an attempt to intimidate an opponent or is careless in their actions" (Rule 621, Situation 2). The two texts are printed in one volume, the Official Rules and Casebook of Ice Hockey 2025-29, which carries the playing rule word for word and then reads it wider in its situations. This document records that rather than picking a side. Play it as though the carry alone can be penalised, which is the safe reading under every book and the only reading under some — and under USA Hockey add that a stick catching an opponent below their shoulders can still be high-sticking. And no IIHF edition requires contact throughout: 60.2 and 60.3 each turn on contact in both — the 2025/26 60.3 on a carry as well, as above, while 60.4 does not in either — its trigger is "recklessly endangers their opponent by 'high-sticking'". So the IIHF's minor and double minor need contact; its major may not.
Cross-checking (Rule 59.1) — "the action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent." That is the complete NHL definition; there is no blade-on-ice element in it. You will often hear that a blade touching the ice means it cannot be a cross-check — that phrasing is part of the playing rule in USA Hockey. Its Rule 609 (Note) defines cross-checking as "using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent with no portion of the stick on the ice" — but it is absent from NHL Rule 59.1 and IIHF Rule 59.1. The floor is a minor, and whether it is discretionary depends on your book. NHL Rule 59.2 imposes one "at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact" — and 59.3 hands the referee the major on word-for-word that same test, so under the NHL book the severity of the contact is the whole of what separates two minutes from five. The IIHF writes its minor at the same number on a differently worded test: its 59.2 has the referee assess one "at their discretion", "based on the degree of force and violence". USA Hockey's is mandatory on its face — 609(a) reads "A minor penalty shall be assessed for cross-checking an opponent", with no severity element in the sentence — and Hockey Canada's 9.2(a) is written the same way, its threshold arriving only in the interpretation quoted below. A major for cross-checking carries an automatic game misconduct — and that much is true in all four books (NHL 59.5, IIHF 59.3, USA Hockey 609(b), Hockey Canada 9.2(e)), and under USA Hockey that major is mandatory for any cross-check that recklessly endangers an opponent. ⚠️ But it is the wrong tier to learn alone, because Hockey Canada gives you no minor floor at all for a cross-check to the head. Its 7.6(b) and 7.7(b) carry the same sentence word for word, with no division scope in either. It reads: "Any player who strikes an opponent above the normal height of their shoulders with a cross-check will be penalized with a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty, whether or not injury results." Its Interpretation 2 to 9.2(b) says that penalty must be assessed. The narrowing matters as much as the tier, and it is narrower than it sounds. Interpretation 2 to 7.6(b) says the rule "is not intended to penalize players who make minimal, accidental contact with an opponent's head with their stick" but those who "make a deliberate cross-checking action and strike an opponent in the head or neck" — so it takes away the major, not the penalty. Hockey Canada 7.6(a) still gives a minor for accidental head contact in minor and female hockey, and 4.8(b)(ii) ejects a player assessed "three Minor or double Minor penalties" for head contact in the same game. Note also that this narrowing is written to 7.6(b); Hockey Canada writes no equivalent interpretation for Junior or Senior. Below the shoulders, Hockey Canada 9.2 runs a bare minor at 9.2(a), a major plus game misconduct at 9.2(b) on two limbs — "at the discretion of the referee, based on the degree of violence of impact", with nobody hurt, and mandatory where it injures — and a match penalty at 9.2(c); its definition is the widest of the four, dropping "forcefully" altogether, with Interpretation 1 to 9.2(a) supplying the test instead: "If a pushing motion is used, a penalty may not be necessary. However, a striking motion must be penalized." The NHL and USA Hockey both reach a match penalty too (59.4, 609(c)); the IIHF does not, because it writes none — its 59.6 allows Rule 28 supplementary discipline above one instead. One further Hockey Canada limb, from the interpretations to its High-Sticking – Junior/Senior rule and so scoped to those divisions: "a cross-checking action [that] glances off the upper body and deflects upwards to make contact with the head or neck area, causing injury" is a major plus a game misconduct under Rule 7.7 — so a cross-check that rides up reaches that tier without being aimed at the head. In minor and female hockey, 7.6 governs. ⚠️ CARHA Hockey writes the same head sentence with no narrowing at all: its Rule 54(b) makes a cross-check that strikes an opponent above the normal height of the shoulders a "Major penalty and Game Misconduct, whether or not injury results", and 54(c) puts the same pair on any cross-check that injures an opponent, at any height, and on one to a goalkeeper in the crease; 54(d) makes a deliberate attempt to injure with one a match penalty. ⚠️ USA Hockey gives you no bare-minor floor for a cross-check to the head either, by a different route. Its own definition makes a cross-check a check — "to forcefully check an opponent" (609 Note) — and its Casebook sends stick contact to the head made "during the process of delivering a check" to the Head Contact rule rather than to high-sticking (Rule 621, Situation 1). Rule 620 counts the stick, starts at a minor plus a misconduct (620(a)), and makes a major plus a game misconduct mandatory for a player who "intentionally or carelessly contacts an opponent in the head, face or neck" (620(b)).
Spearing (Rule 62) — stabbing with the point of the blade. Double minor if you miss, major plus game misconduct if you connect, match penalty if you injure — that is the NHL's ladder, and of the four books only the IIHF has no match tier for it at all. ⚠️ The IIHF stops two short: 62.2 and 62.3 match the NHL, but 62.4 is Disciplinary Measures, not a match penalty, because the IIHF book writes none — so a British reader's ceiling here is the major plus automatic game misconduct inside the game, and 62.4 is a route above it rather than a dead end, allowing Supplementary Discipline under Rule 28 at the Proper Authorities' discretion. ⚠️ And the other two books remove a rung at each end. USA Hockey 635(a) has no double minor at all: "a major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed for spearing an opponent", with 635(b) adding that a match penalty for reckless endangerment "may also be assessed for spearing". Hockey Canada 9.4(b) removes the middle instead — "No Major penalty may be assessed for a spearing infraction" — so above its double minor there is only a match penalty.
Butt-ending (Rule 58) — using the shaft above your upper hand, or the butt of the stick, to jab or check. Same first two rungs in the NHL and IIHF books — double minor for the attempt, major plus game misconduct for contact — and the NHL adds a match penalty for injury at 58.4. ⚠️ The IIHF does not: its 58.4 is Disciplinary Measures, so your ceiling on the ice is the major plus automatic game misconduct — and 58.4 is the route above it, to Rule 28 supplementary discipline, not the end of the ladder. ⚠️ And the same two divergences as spearing. USA Hockey 606(a) puts the attempt straight at a major plus a game misconduct, and says so in terms: the attempt "shall include all cases where a 'butt-end' gesture is made regardless of whether body contact is made or not." A gesture with nobody touched is an ejection there. Hockey Canada 9.1(b) again bars the middle rung — "No Major penalty may be assessed for butt-ending" — with 9.1(c) supplying a match penalty at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence, and mandatory where the foul injures. USA Hockey has its own match tier too, at 606(b), where a match penalty for reckless endangerment "may also be assessed for butt-ending". And note Hockey Canada narrows its own offence: 9.1's definition does reach a player who uses the shaft above the upper hand "to check or jab", but its Interpretation 1 to 9.1(a) then says "in order for a butt-ending penalty to be assessed, a jabbing motion must occur" — so the check limb is written in the rule and taken away by the interpretation.
Holding the stick (Rule 54.2) — a specific minor, announced as such. ⚠️ The grab-and-release grace is a permission, and it is written in three of the six books read here — the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (55.2); CARHA's Rule 63(a) writes none. NHL 54.2 and IIHF 54.2 both say a player is permitted to protect "himself" — the IIHF reads "themself" — "by defending against an opponent's stick", and "must immediately release the stick". Hockey Canada permits only blocking — 8.1 lets you block an opponent's stick "with their hands, arms, or body" and writes no grab-and-release grace at all. And USA Hockey runs the other way: Rule 622's Note names "using a free hand to clutch, grab or hold the stick" as holding outright, with no self-defence permission anywhere in the rule. So "grab it, then let go" is a minor in a USA Hockey game — and do not read USA Hockey's Standard of Play, which states the same definition and adds "in a manner that impedes their progress", as a grace period. The same two pages list "grabbing the opponent's body, stick or sweater with one or both hands" among its own examples, put the principle disjunctively as "will not be allowed to grab or impede", and tell officials these are "to be called with very strict enforcement." The NHL and IIHF narrow their permission too: Rule 56.1's free-hand standard says a free hand "may be used by a player to 'fend off' an opponent or his stick, but may not be used to hold an opponent's stick or body." The holding rule itself stops at a minor in the NHL, the IIHF, the PWHL and USA Hockey — Rule 54, PWHL 55.2 and Rule 622 have no major tier for ordinary holding — though a hold meant to injure — or, under USA Hockey, one that recklessly endangers — still reaches a match penalty under the general rule in three of them (NHL and PWHL 21.1, USA Hockey 602(a)). Two books go higher inside the holding rule, and in both holding a stick can end your night. Hockey Canada 8.1(b) makes a major plus a game misconduct mandatory where any holding infraction injures an opponent — its words are "a holding infraction", not the stick limb alone. Under CARHA a major is at the referee's discretion (63(a)) and mandatory where the holding injures (63(b)), and any major rules a player, goalkeeper included, off for the game (30(a)), with at least a one-game suspension (32(d)). (USA Hockey's major and match tiers in the same rule are for grabbing a facemask, which is a different offence.)

Practically: the whole stick-foul family collapses into one habit. Stick on the puck, never stick on the player. (Not "stick on the ice" — that is USA Hockey's cross-checking wording and it is not a general safe harbour: a stick on the ice can still be tripping, hooking or slashing.) If your stick is horizontal and touching an opponent, you are one referee's judgement away from a penalty. The defensive alternative is your feet and your body position, which is why gap control and angling are defensive skills and reaching is a defensive failure. See Body Contact and Battles and Defending the Rush.

Body fouls

These are the ones you are most likely to meet — coaching craft rather than a count, not a published tally of calls, and not a complete list. Two fouls are deliberately not covered here: head-butting and kicking. All four books penalise both, and they grade them very differently from one another; this document does not compare those tiers across the books, so look them up in the book your league runs rather than inferring anything from their absence. Where a bullet below gives a penalty range, check that against your own book too.

Boarding (Rule 41) — checking or pushing a defenceless opponent so that he hits the boards violently or dangerously. Severity, and therefore whether it is a minor, major or match, is at the referee's discretion based on the impact — but that ladder is the NHL's, and it is wrong in both directions elsewhere. USA Hockey has no bare minor for boarding: 603(a) is "a minor plus a misconduct or major plus game misconduct", with 603(b) making the harsher one mandatory for reckless endangerment and 603(c) reaching a match. Hockey Canada makes the game misconduct mandatory with any boarding major (7.2(e)), and 7.2(b) itself runs on two limbs: a major plus a game misconduct "At the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact" — nobody has to be hurt for that one — and the same pair mandatory where a board that would otherwise be a minor injures. The IIHF book — the British one — reaches the ejection on a different trigger: 41.4 reaches a major and a game misconduct for reckless endangerment, again with nobody hurt. The IIHF book carries no match penalty for boarding at all, so do not treat "match" as your worst case there. Treat 41.4's major plus game misconduct as your worst case inside the game — and IIHF 41.5 is Disciplinary Measures, a route above it rather than a dead end, allowing Supplementary Discipline under Rule 28 at the Proper Authorities' discretion. ⚠️ In the Elite League that ejection stops being a judgement call once a face or a head is hurt — the EIHL Casebook’s entry for this rule reads "When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed." Even the NHL makes a game misconduct mandatory where a boarding major injures an opponent's face or head — that one is the NHL's own 41.5, a different clause from the IIHF's. The onus is explicitly on the checker to ensure his opponent is not defenceless — though the rulebook does allow the referee to consider whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position at the last moment. Unnecessary contact on an obvious icing or offside play that puts a man into the boards is boarding by definition — and that clause is in three books verbatim (NHL 41.1, IIHF 41.1, Hockey Canada 7.2), not the NHL's alone; USA Hockey reaches it from the icing rule instead, at 624(d), for icing only, without the offside half and without naming it boarding. ⚠️ USA Hockey's trigger is wider than the definition above. Rule 603 reaches a player who "pushes, trips or body checks an opponent causing them to go dangerously into the boards" — no defencelessness needed in the base sentence — and separately reaches "any check delivered for the purpose of punishment or intimidation that causes the opponent to go unnecessarily and excessively into the boards", which catches a fully aware opponent. Its glossary makes a skater defenceless when "unaware, unprepared or unsuspecting", and 640(b) says of a player who has released a shot or pass that "[t]hey are considered to be vulnerable or defenseless and are not eligible to be body checked" — a definition that carries no classification limb at all, so while 640(b)'s minor is written "except Adult Male Classifications", adult men lose that one named tier and keep everything else: the definition still feeds 603's trigger — an inference, on the same footing as the 640(g)/(h) question below, and not settled by the rulebook alone, so a check into the boards on someone who has just moved the puck may be boarding there rather than merely a late hit. Hockey Canada's preamble says "unsuspecting" rather than defenceless, which is wider again. ⚠️ USA Hockey alone writes a permission here, and it is narrower than it sounds: 603 says "'Rolling' an opponent along the boards where they are attempting to go through too small an opening is not considered boarding" — but that protects you from a boarding call only, only under that book, and only if you are in a classification where body checking is legal at all, because 604 defines an illegal body check as intentional contact "using overt hip, shoulder, forearm or torso action" — rolling a man along the wall is torso action — and 604 prohibits body checking in 12U and below, all girls' and women's classifications and all non-check adult classifications. (604(c)'s Note pulls the other way for one case: "Competitive contact also occurs when a player has established an angle (Angling - see Glossary) on the opponent and closes the gap to create an opening that is too small for the puck carrier to advance", and "[l]egal competitive contact shall not be penalized under this rule." But the sentence straight after it is the limit: "However, deliberate physical contact with an opponent, with no effort to legally play the puck, shall be penalized." USA Hockey's separate Casebook was searched for this and does not move that limit: its Rule 604, Situation 2 restates the test at length — legal competitive contact is where players are "focused on the puck and are simply maintaining legally established body position" — without qualifying the sentence above.) Import it into an IIHF or Hockey Canada game and you have nothing. ⚠️ And the cost of a major can outlive the game — for most of the fouls in this list, not just this one. NHL 23.6 collects boarding, charging, checking from behind, clipping, elbowing, head-butting, interference and kneeing into a Physical Infractions Category, where a second game misconduct before 41 clean games is an automatic one-game suspension. USA Hockey Rule 411 goes further, counting a third major across a seventeen-rule list — most of the fouls below — as three further games, a fourth as five, and a fifth as "suspended until a hearing is conducted by the proper authorities (USA Hockey Affiliate)." The count is cumulative across all of them, not per foul. And a USA Hockey game misconduct is never only tonight: Rule 404(b) suspends you for your team's next game automatically, on the first one. Hockey Canada 4.8(c) does the same for any game misconduct in the last ten minutes, in overtime, or after the game — "a minimum of the next regular league/play-off game or seven days" — and its 7.2(b), 8.1(b) and 8.3(b) each make that game misconduct mandatory where the foul injures. Nor is boarding scoped by division. Hockey Canada's body-checking rule, 7.3, is the rule that bans hitting, and it applies only in U13 and below, in female hockey and in any Member-approved division — it does not scope 7.2, and USA Hockey does not scope 603 either. So if you have been told the checking rules are not yours, the boarding rule still is.
Charging (Rule 42) — violently checking an opponent as a result of distance travelled, speed built up, or leaving your feet. It can be into the boards, into the net, or in open ice. ⚠️ Jumping is charging in its own right, however short the approach. NHL 42.1 opens on a player who "skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner" and IIHF 42.1 on one who "either jumps to check an opponent"; Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 to 7.4(a) fixes the moment — feet off the ice before contact, and not charging if they leave it after — but only "during an otherwise legal check". ⚠️ The written stride threshold differs by one stride between the books that give a number: USA Hockey Rule 607 penalises "more than two strides" and the Note to CARHA Rule 52(a) "more than two steps or strides", where Hockey Canada 7.4(ii) says "two or more" — so the two strides that sit under the count in two books are already the offence in the third. IIHF 42.1 says "multiple strides" and the NHL gives no count. ⚠️ Do not read any of those numbers as a ceiling you may skate to, because the count is one limb of the test and not the test. USA Hockey's own sentence continues "or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent", and its Standard of Play and Rule Emphasis — Body Checking lists "[a]ccelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent" as an example of charging with no stride count attached to it at all. Two strides is a safe harbour in no book. ⚠️ A minor is the floor in three of the four main books here, and in CARHA's — and in none of them is it the ceiling. The NHL (42.2) and the IIHF (42.2) both allow a bare minor at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence, and Hockey Canada is blunter still — 7.4(a) says a minor "will be assessed to any player who charges an opponent", with no violence test and no discretion at all — while 7.4(d) forbids adding a misconduct to it; USA Hockey is the exception, where 607(a) is a minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct and no bare minor exists. Above that floor: USA Hockey 607(b) makes the major and game misconduct compulsory for reckless endangerment and 607(e) reaches a match penalty; IIHF 42.4 allows a major plus a game misconduct for reckless endangerment at the referee's discretion — the IIHF's own summary tables put charging among the majors where the game misconduct is a judgement call, unlike clipping, where it is automatic — ⚠️ but in the Elite League a charging major that injures a face or head carries a mandatory game misconduct, the EIHL Casebook’s Rule 42 entry saying so in terms; Hockey Canada 7.4(b) has the same two limbs its other physical fouls do — a major plus a game misconduct "At the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact", with nobody hurt, and that same pair mandatory where a charge that would otherwise be a minor injures an opponent — and 7.4(c) reaches a match penalty where the opponent could not defend themselves; even the NHL has a match penalty at 42.4 and a mandatory game misconduct at 42.5 where a major injures the face or head. CARHA's adult book makes a charge a minor or, at the referee's discretion, a major, and a major plus a game misconduct is mandatory once the charge injures (52(a)) or is on a goalkeeper inside the crease (52(b)) — and there any major ends your game (30(a)). Hockey Canada makes an open-ice check to an opponent's blind side charging outright (7.4(v)) — and the IIHF defines a blind-sided hit in its own Appendix II, Definition, Terminology & Terms, as one delivered "outside the latter's established peripheral vision", which "is not considered to be a well-executed check, and may be penalized accordingly" — a standard it leaves to judgement. The only book that puts a number on it is Hockey Canada, whose Interpretation 2 to Rule 7.4(a) defines a blindside hit as "an open-ice body check that is delivered from an angle of approach outside a 90° peripheral point of view of a vulnerable opponent, whether or not the player has the puck." See Body Contact and Battles, which covers this.
Checking from behind (Rule 43) — a check on a player who is unaware and unable to protect himself, with contact on the back of the body. Under NHL rules there is no minor penalty for this — Rule 43.2 says so in terms ("There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind"): it is a major plus an automatic game misconduct, anywhere on the ice. The IIHF book lands in the same place and is blunter about why — IIHF 43.2 reads "This infraction is considered serious and dangerous, therefore there is no option to award a minor penalty for 'Checking from Behind'", and 43.3 provides "a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct penalty" against a player who "recklessly endangers the fouled Player." Rule 43 is one where the NHL and the IIHF agree, which is what makes Rule 48 below an exception rather than a pattern. USA Hockey does provide a minor option — Rule 608(a) reads "a minor plus a misconduct penalty, or a major plus a game misconduct penalty, shall be assessed for checking from behind" — but 608(b) makes the major-plus-game-misconduct mandatory where the check "recklessly endangers an opponent, or causes them to go head first into the boards or goal frame, as a result of checking from behind", and 608(c) escalates to a match penalty. Do not read the minor option as leniency, and do not read Rule 608 as the whole of USA Hockey's answer, because its Casebook sorts the hits between the tiers. USA Hockey Official Rules and Casebook 2025-29, Rule 608, Situation 1 says "The minor plus misconduct penalty must be assessed in the following situations" and names two: a player who, "in an attempt to catch an opponent who is skating ahead of them and not near the boards, pushes the opponent from behind, causing them to fall to the ice", and a player who "makes minimal body contact from behind to an opponent who is in close proximity to them, and board contact is made. This check should be called as a minor and a misconduct as the result of this 'pinch' against the boards from behind." ⚠️ The second of those does involve the boards — so it is the force, not the presence of the wall, that separates the tiers. Against those two the Casebook sets three instances in which "The major plus a game misconduct penalty, or match penalty, must be called": "(1) In every instance where a player forcefully checks an opponent who is standing along the boards (back toward the middle of the ice)", "(2) In every instance where a player is thrust head first into the boards or goal frame", and — the one that does not depend on the boards at all — "(3) In every instance where the player recklessly endangers the opponent from a check from behind, regardless of whether or not board contact is made." The same page tells officials to be sensitive to every check from behind inside the "danger zone," which it puts at "approximately ten feet out from the boards." Hockey Canada reaches the ejection by a different route again: Rule 7.5(a) assesses "a Minor penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty" to a player who "intentionally pushes, body-checks, cross-checks while in motion, or otherwise hits an opposing player from behind, anywhere on the ice" — the in-motion element is what its Interpretation 1 uses to separate this from plain cross-checking, 7.5(b) has two limbs — a major plus game misconduct at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence of the impact, and a major plus game misconduct that must be assessed "if a player is injured, as the result of a checking from behind infraction that would otherwise call for a Minor penalty" — 7.5(c) makes a match penalty mandatory where the player is driven into the boards or goal frame "in such a way that the player is unable to protect or defend themselves", and 7.5(e) requires the game misconduct "any time a Minor or Major penalty is assessed for Checking From Behind" — so under that book even the small version ends your night. Of the four books, USA Hockey is the only one whose lowest tier stops short of an ejection — its misconduct is a plain one, which returns you to the ice where a game misconduct would not (Rule 404(a)) — but its own Casebook takes that tier off a forceful check along the boards and off any check from behind that recklessly endangers, so for those two all four books end your game. Treat the onus as the checker's — USA Hockey Rule 608 states it in those words ("the onus is on the player delivering the check to not hit from behind") and Hockey Canada Rule 7.5's preamble says "in all circumstances", while NHL and IIHF Rule 43 state no onus at all. Either way "he turned at the last second" is not a defence: the NHL and the IIHF waive the penalty only for a deliberate turn to draw the contact — the NHL frames it as a player who "intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back" — and neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes even that. Hockey Canada writes a different waiver instead, for marginal accidental contact while playing the puck and for low-speed pinning, and a late turn is neither. See Common Mistakes for why a late turn is not a deliberate one.
Slew-footing (Rule 52) — sweeping an opponent's feet out from under them with your leg or foot, or pushing their upper body backward with an arm or elbow while your leg takes their skates. ⚠️ It grows straight out of an ordinary battle position, and the four books grade it further apart than almost any other foul. NHL 52.2 has no minor tier, no major tier and no discretion at all: "Any player who is guilty of slew-footing shall be assessed a match penalty." IIHF 52.2 — the British reader's — reads "The Referee shall, at their discretion, assess a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct penalty if a Player is guilty of 'slew-footing' on an opposing Player." Read the frame: shall assess, where the IIHF writes may assess in the neighbouring rules, and Rule 52 writes no lesser tier beneath it — 52.1 defines the foul and 52.2 is its only penalty clause. That is an ejection, and not a match penalty. USA Hockey excludes it from its own minor (639(a) covers the tripping family "except slew footing") and sets the floor at a major plus a game misconduct, with 639(c) adding that a match penalty for reckless endangerment "may also be assessed under this rule". Hockey Canada is the outlier and the one place the ladder starts small — note starts. 8.8(a) is a double minor and 8.8(b) bars a major outright, but 8.8(c) reaches a match penalty, discretionary on the degree of violence and mandatory where the foul injures, so its ceiling is the ejection the double minor is not. Hockey Canada also defines it more widely than the other three, reaching a leg that "knock[s], drag[s], or sweep[s]" the feet away rather than only knocks or kicks, and its Interpretation 1 to 8.8(a) says "serious consideration for a Match penalty should be paid when an offending player is 'in motion' (skating) while committing this foul." The leg through the skates is what makes it slew-footing, and it is an ejection at the floor in three books of four. What the NHL and IIHF definitions (52.1) both end on is a player made to fall "violently to the ice". That the fall lands them backward and head-first is this guide's reading, not a sentence any rulebook writes. ⚠️ If someone goes down backward and is not getting up, nobody moves them except to keep their airway clear, and nobody takes the helmet off, and neck pain is an ambulance call. If you went down and got up, come off and say so: a suspected concussion means off the ice, no return that day, and a medical professional before you play again. Conditioning and Recovery carries the red flags and the sources for both. None of that makes the arm legal. The arm bar is conditional where it is written at all: NHL 54.2 allows an arm "in a strength move, by blocking his opponent, provided he has body position and is not using his hands in a holding manner" — two conditions, not one, and the IIHF, the PWHL and Hockey Canada (8.1) print the same words — and neither of them is pushing the upper body backward. USA Hockey and CARHA write no such permission — USA Hockey's Rule 622 Note names a free arm used "to restrain or impede the opponent's progress" as holding, and CARHA's 63(a) reaches a player who holds "with the hands, stick or in any other manner". See the Holding bullet below. See Body Contact and Battles for the battle position this is the illegal version of.
Elbowing (Rule 45) — use of an extended elbow, whether or not injury results. Under the NHL a major must be assessed if it injures the face or head, and that brings a game misconduct (45.3, 45.5), with 45.4 reaching a match penalty where the referee judges an attempt to injure or a deliberate injury. ⚠️ The clause number does not travel. IIHF 45.2 is a minor, 45.3 a bare major where a minor would not suffice, and 45.4 a major plus a game misconduct for reckless endangerment — a lower threshold than intent, so the British reader's ejection route is easier to trip than the NHL's, and there is no match tier above it on the ice, because the IIHF book writes no match penalty for anything — 45.5 allows Supplementary Discipline under Rule 28 instead. ⚠️ In the Elite League there is a second route to the same ejection, and it is mandatory: the EIHL Casebook’s elbowing entry imposes a game misconduct on any elbowing major "resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent". USA Hockey runs a minor for elbowing "or an attempt to elbow" (611(a)), a major plus game misconduct for reckless endangerment (611(b)), and a match penalty (611(c)). Hockey Canada writes no rule titled Elbowing — there is none in its Section 7 list — so an elbow is handled under head contact, roughing or checking from behind, and each of those routes reaches a match penalty: 7.6(c) and 7.7(c) for head contact, 7.9(c) for a deliberate attempt to injure by roughing, 7.5(c) for checking from behind. Its Rule 7.5 also names a player who "swings the elbow and forearm into the opponent's back with the intent of throwing the opponent into the boards" among the situations referees are told to enforce strictly.
Kneeing (Rule 50) — leading with the knee, sometimes extending the leg out. ⚠️ That is three books’ definition and not the fourth’s, and the fourth is wider. NHL 50.1 reads "leading with his knee and in some cases extending his leg outwards to make contact with his opponent", IIHF 50.1 is the same sentence in the plural, and USA Hockey’s Rule 628 Note is "leading with or extending their knee outwards for the purpose of making contact". Hockey Canada 7.8 defines it by the point of contact instead — kneeing is contact "where the knee is the principle point of contact", and that "may take the form of a player making contact with an opponent’s knee on an otherwise legal hit, leading into a hit with their knee, or deliberately extending their leg outwards". So under Hockey Canada a check that was clean in every other respect is still kneeing if your knee finds theirs — no lead and no extension required. A major for kneeing carries an automatic game misconduct, and 50.4 reaches a match penalty for attempting to or deliberately injuring. ⚠️ The floors and ceilings differ in every book, and again the clause number does not travel — IIHF 50.4 is not a match penalty. IIHF 50.3 is a major plus an automatic game misconduct and there is no match tier above it inside the game — IIHF 50.4 is Disciplinary Measures, allowing Supplementary Discipline under Rule 28 at the Proper Authorities' discretion. USA Hockey 628(a) has no bare minor — it is a minor plus a misconduct — with 628(b) making a major plus game misconduct mandatory for reckless endangerment and 628(c) allowing a match penalty. Hockey Canada 7.8(a) starts at a double minor, four minutes — and 7.8(b) is the rung between that and the match penalty, on two limbs: a major plus a game misconduct "At the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact", with nobody hurt, and that same pair mandatory where a knee that would otherwise be a double minor injures. 7.8(c) makes a match penalty mandatory for a deliberate attempt to injure by kneeing, and 7.8(e) makes the game misconduct automatic on any 7.8(b) major.
Clipping (Rule 44) — throwing the body across or below the knees from any direction, or lowering your own body to hit at or below the knees. ⚠️ A major is not the ceiling, and injury is not the trigger everywhere. NHL 44.3 requires the major where injury results, 44.5 makes a game misconduct mandatory with it, and 44.4 reaches a match penalty for attempting to or deliberately injuring. Under the IIHF book — the British one — nobody has to be hurt: 44.3 gives a major plus an automatic game misconduct where the referee judges the clip "recklessly endangers" the opponent. USA Hockey 639(b) makes the same major plus game misconduct mandatory for reckless endangerment and 639(c) reaches a match penalty; Hockey Canada's tiers are at 8.7(b) and 8.7(c), below. Both books that write a crouching clause put it in this rule — see the ducking passage below.
Roughing (Rule 51) — a punching or slamming motion, gloved or not, usually at the head or face; and — in the NHL's book and the IIHF's — intentionally removing an opponent's helmet during play (NHL 51.1 and 51.2, both routed through Rule 9.6; IIHF 51.1 and 51.2, identical in its 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions). ⚠️ That helmet limb is written for open play — "during play" — and it is not the rule for a helmet that comes off in a fight. Each of the four books handles that somewhere other than roughing, and two of them are nowhere near a minor. USA Hockey puts it inside the fighting rule, at 615(c), and starts at a match penalty "(for all age classifications)" — one for a player who deliberately removes their own helmet/facemask "prior to an altercation", and a second for one who deliberately removes "their opponent's helmet/facemask prior to or during an altercation" — with a game misconduct carrying an express two-game suspension for a player "whose actions during an altercation causes the removal of an opponent's helmet and facemask", and a further game misconduct for a player who "doesn't wear their helmet/facemask as designed and the helmet/facemask is removed during an altercation." ⚠️ And USA Hockey's Casebook widens it in the direction that catches ordinary players. Its Rule 615, Situation 14 assesses the match penalty "any time a player involved in that altercation deliberately removes their own helmet" — during, where the printed clause reaches your own helmet only "prior to" — and adds that "[f]ighting penalties do not have to be assessed when applying Rule 615(c)." The Note applying to Situations 14–20 says "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", and Situation 21 defines an altercation as "[a]ny physical interaction between two or more opposing players where at least one penalty assessed." So a post-whistle shove that draws one roughing minor is an altercation, and pulling your own lid off in it is a match penalty with no punch thrown. Hockey Canada files the same act under equipment rather than fighting — its roughing and fighting rules, 7.9 and 7.10, say nothing about helmets — and still ends your night: Rule 10.6(f) makes it a Gross Misconduct — an order to the dressing room for the rest of the game plus a report to the league (4.9(a)) — to intentionally remove your own or another player's helmet before or during a fight, or to undo either chinstrap so that the helmet comes off during it; and 10.6(d) adds a misconduct for a player who "undoes their chinstrap to incite or challenge an opponent but does not actually participate in a fight." The NHL and the IIHF are the lenient pair here, and they are the two books most readers have watched: NHL 46.6, and IIHF 46.12 in the 2025/26 book and 46.6 in the 2026/27 one, all price removing your own helmet before a fight at a minor for unsportsmanlike conduct, and all three add that "[h]elmets that come off in the course of and resulting from the altercation will not result in a penalty to either player" — the NHL's wording, the IIHF's differing only in capitalising Player. That sentence has no counterpart in USA Hockey's book, where the same helmet coming off is a game misconduct for somebody — the player whose actions caused it, or the player whose chin strap was not properly fastened (Casebook, Rule 615, Situations 16 and 17). The NHL and the IIHF both define roughing as "a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant", and all four books define "altercation", though not identically: the NHL as "a situation involving two players with at least one to be penalized", the IIHF 2025/26 and Hockey Canada as "at least two" — though the IIHF 2026/27 book has since adopted the NHL's "two" at its own 46.3 — and USA Hockey more narrowly still in its Glossary — it wants a penalty actually assessed, a gathering of players, and officials having to separate them. Do not read "minor" as the ceiling in any book, including your own. Under the IIHF, which is the British reader's book, Rule 51.2 sends a player who "persists in continuing to be involved in roughing" to the fighting rule, and Rule 46.5 assesses "a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct penalty" to a player who punches "an unsuspecting or 'unwilling combatant / opponent' (i.e., 'sucker punch') that could cause an injury" — which is what the ordinary rec-hockey glove punch at somebody not fighting actually is. Under Hockey Canada, Rule 7.9's preamble says roughing "should not be utilized in lieu of more serious penalties for Rule 7.6 – Head Contact or Rule 7.10 – Fighting. Therefore, if a player punches an opponent in the head, face or neck, then the appropriate penalty will be assessed under Rule 7.6 – Head Contact" — where a major plus a game misconduct is mandatory if injury results and 7.6(c) reaches a match penalty. In Junior and Senior, Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 to Rule 7.7(a) treats raising the "stick, hands, forearm, shoulder, or elbow to hit an opponent in the head area" as head contact "rather than for roughing", at a minimum of a minor plus a misconduct — though 7.7's own preamble still lets a referee call minimal-violence head contact as roughing in those divisions, so Hockey Canada's text pulls both ways and only the punch-specific rule, 7.9, is unambiguous. Under USA Hockey, 640(a) sends anything major-worthy to Rule 615 Fighting, whose Note counts "a punch, or an attempted punch, thrown by any player in the direction of an opponent, regardless as to whether contact is made", and 615(a) puts a major plus a game misconduct on any player who fights. (640(g) and 640(h) do not reach a punch — both enumerate subsections b to f, and roughing is 640(a) — so the escalation runs through 615.) Assume ejection, not a mutual two minutes. If you are the one who was hit, USA Hockey writes you a way out — and it is USA Hockey's alone. 615(a) says that "a player who does not retaliate after being struck shall not be assessed a penalty for fighting under this rule", while a player who "having been struck, continues the altercation by retaliating" faces a minor, double minor, or major plus game misconduct at the referee's discretion. If you threw the punch, none of that is for you. The IIHF writes no such exemption. Its nearest provision runs the other way: 46.6 confers the status of "unwilling combatant" on a player who "defends themself with a 'few punches'" and assesses them nothing on that basis, while a player who "retaliates to being punched" gets "at least a minor penalty ('Roughing') or a major penalty ('Fighting', without a game misconduct penalty), if the criteria for 'fighting back' with a few punches is not fulfilled." So under the British reader's book skating away is the safer choice on the rules as written, not a written protection. So do not retaliate: turn away, get to an official or your bench, and let the referee sort it out — see Body Contact and Battles. And if it landed on your head, come off and say so: a suspected concussion means off the ice, no return that day, and a medical professional before you play again. Conditioning and Recovery carries the red flags that mean an ambulance instead, and the sources.
Interference (Rule 56) — the most conceptually important body foul, and the one you should actually study. The rule turns on body position: you have body position when you are in front of or beside your opponent, travelling in the same direction. Beside gives you the ice you are standing on; only in front gives you the block. The NHL and IIHF write the permission into the interference rule in materially identical words — the NHL's reads that a player may block an opponent's path "provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction", and the IIHF's is the same sentence in the plural, "provided they are in front of their opponent and moving in the same direction" — and USA Hockey states the same permission in its Declaration of Player Safety, Fair Play and Respect, under the heading Competitive Contact Category, which opens "Non-check hockey does not mean no contact" — so it is written for non-check play and, on the same reading as the inference above, holds a fortiori where checking is legal — an inference, not the book's words — so from beside, moving across into their path is a pick and not a block. You are entitled to the ice you are standing on — you do not have to move for anyone. What you may not do is move laterally into a player without having established position (that is a "pick"), or use your stick or free hand to lengthen his route, or deliberately check a player who is not in possession, whether or not he sees it coming (NHL 56.2(iii); IIHF 56.2(III), which calls it the "late-hit"). A player who has just lost the puck may be checked, but only immediately after losing it. The NHL and IIHF both open the rule with the same instruction — "A strict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink" — and the NHL's 2025-26 book then softened 56.2's operative verb from "shall" to "can", formally acknowledging it as a judgement call. ⚠️ That softening is the NHL's alone: IIHF 56.2 still reads "shall be assessed". ⚠️ And interference is not capped at a minor. NHL 56.4 allows a major on the degree of violence, and 56.5 adds a game misconduct where a major has been imposed under the rule and it injures; IIHF 56.5 reaches a major plus a game misconduct for a late hit that recklessly endangers, with nobody hurt — and IIHF 56.1 says in terms that a late hit "constitutes reckless endangerment of a Player who 'no longer has control or possession of the puck'." Hockey Canada is harsher at the top, and it does not need anybody hurt: 8.3(b)'s first sentence reaches a major plus a game misconduct "at the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact", and its second makes that tier mandatory where interference injures an opponent; 8.3(c) is a match penalty for an attempt to injure or a deliberate one. USA Hockey writes no tier above the minor inside Rule 625 — but the late hit is not only in Rule 625 there. Rule 640(b) names a player who has released a shot or pass as "vulnerable or defenseless and are not eligible to be body checked", and 640(g) and 640(h) reach a major plus a game misconduct and a match penalty for recklessly endangering them — though 640(g) is written to reach only actions "falling under Rule 640(b, c, d, e or f)" and 640(h) is limited the same way in its own words, so how far they carry in adult men's play is not settled by the rulebook alone (see What actually gets called). 602(a) has no such limit: it reaches any player who "recklessly endangers or attempts to injure" an opponent. Treat the minor as the floor, not the ceiling. And NHL 23.6 puts interference in the same Physical Infractions Category as boarding, so two game misconducts there carry an automatic suspension too. ⚠️ "Only immediately" is the NHL's bare word, and two books say more. Hockey Canada 8.3 writes the only test you can actually judge from the ice: immediate contact "is best described as" contact occurring "within a maximum distance of an arm and stick length between the puck carrier and the player delivering the check, at the instant the puck has been released." Treat that as a stricter standard, not a window the other three books grant you — the IIHF puts no measurable distance on it — proximity is a condition there, but a judged one, and closing it while adding force is what risks turning a legal check into a late hit. And the IIHF book — the British one — carries both halves of the answer: a player losing the puck "is subject to a bodycheck so long as the aggressor is in the immediate vicinity", judged by whether there was an "objectively reasonable window of opportunity" to deliver it; and its Appendix II definitions add the instruction that matters, that closing the distance and adding force "risks turning a body check into a late hit by virtue of the vulnerable position of the opponent and the degree of force of the hit." ⚠️ Two things the two North American books penalise that the NHL and IIHF do not enumerate: screening for your own puck carrier — USA Hockey 625(a) names "providing a protective screen and limiting the opportunity for an opposing player to apply pressure to a teammate in possession or control of the puck", and Hockey Canada 8.3 says players in possession "may not run deliberate interference for the puck carrier" — and, on the defensive side, USA Hockey 625(a) reaching "a defending player who changes their skating lane or foot speed in an effort to play the body of an opponent who is no longer in control of the puck." Nor is interference scoped by division — 8.3 and 625 are unscoped too.
Holding (Rule 54) — any action that restrains or impedes an opponent, with or without the puck. Hockey Canada's 8.1 is wider than that, reaching any action "prohibiting their ability to pass, shoot, receive, or otherwise propel the puck" — so a hand on the arm that stops a shot without impeding a stride is holding there. You may use your arm in a strength move to block, provided you have body position and are not using your hands to hold — but that permission is written in the NHL's, the IIHF's, Hockey Canada's and the PWHL's books (54.2, 54.2, 8.1 and 55.2), and in neither USA Hockey's nor CARHA's. USA Hockey Rule 622's Note runs the other way, naming "using a free arm/hand to restrain or impede the opponent's progress" and "wrapping one or both arms around the opponent along the boards in a manner that pins them against the boards and prevents them from playing the puck or skating" as holding. On the wall in a USA Hockey game, win it with your feet and your hips rather than your arm. ⚠️ And a minor is not the ceiling. NHL 54 and IIHF 54 stop there, and the IIHF book writes no match penalty at all — §4 has why that is not leniency. Hockey Canada 8.1(b) makes a major plus a game misconduct mandatory where a holding infraction injures an opponent — the only one of the NHL, IIHF, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada books whose holding rule reaches an ejection for ordinary holding, though the NHL and USA Hockey get there another way, through a general match penalty — the NHL's Rule 21.1 for a player who deliberately attempts to injure or deliberately injures "in any manner", USA Hockey's 602(a) for one who "recklessly endangers or attempts to injure" — and so does the PWHL, at its own 21.1. CARHA's adult book goes further: 63(a) allows a major at the referee's discretion for any hold and 63(b) makes it mandatory when the hold injures, and there any major ends your game (30(a)). The IIHF writes no tier above the minor in Rule 54 at all. Whether its Rule 21 can reach a holding infraction is not settled by the text: 21.1 is confined to conduct "not covered by the playing rules", yet 75.2 routes a covered offence — grabbing a face mask — onward to Rule 21 "based on the degree of force". Treat the minor as the floor and not a guarantee. And in USA Hockey the facemask is a different offence inside the same rule: 622(b) is a major plus a game misconduct for a hand used "to rub, grab or hold the facemask", 622(c) reaches a match penalty, and that limb is on Rule 411's aggressive-infractions list, where a third major from anywhere on that list costs you three further games and a fifth means a hearing — with Rule 404(b) suspending you for your team's next game automatically on the very first game misconduct. Never touch an opponent's cage. Hockey Canada files the same action under Rule 7.1, Attempt to Injure, from a double minor at minimal violence up to a match penalty. No book of the four lets you count on two minutes for a facemask grab, and nor does the PWHL. ⚠️ Nor is holding scoped by division — same as boarding above: 8.1 and 622 are unscoped where the body-checking rules are not.
Illegal check to the head (Rule 48) — a hit where the head was the main point of contact and that contact was avoidable, which is the whole of what the NHL book prohibits and only part of what the IIHF book does. ⚠️ Taking that two-part test for the definition of the offence is the mistake that gets a player hurt: it invites the inference that a hit to the head is acceptable when the head was not the main point of contact, or when the contact was unavoidable — an inference the IIHF book, the British reader’s book at every level, forbids in Rule 48.1’s own first sentence. Both books write that sentence word for word, but IIHF Rule 48.1 puts two sentences of its own above it — "There is no clean check to the head or neck" and "The Player delivering the hit must avoid hitting the opponent’s head or neck" — and adds that the rule "supersedes all similar actions regarding hits to the head and neck." The NHL book writes none of the three. The rule lists what "avoidable" means: whether you tried to hit through the body and picked the head through poor timing or angle or by extending upward; whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable posture; whether he changed his body or head position at the last instant. This is a minor penalty in the NHL — Rule 48.3 reads "There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule" and 48.4 says the same of a game misconduct — though a match penalty is available if the referee judges intent to injure, and supplementary discipline usually follows.

That ceiling is NHL-only, and it is the most consequential rule-set difference on this page. ⚠️ Do not read "minor" as the international standard. The IIHF rule is headed "Illegal Check to the Head or Neck" and opens "There is no clean check to the head or neck." It then enumerates four triggers the NHL text does not: a player who directs a hit "of any sort, with any part of their body or equipment, to the head or neck" of an opponent, or drives an opponent's head into the glass or boards; who "extends and directs any part of their upper body to contact the head or neck"; who "extends their body upward or outward in order to reach their opponent or uses any part of the upper body to contact an opponent's head or neck"; and "A Player who jumps (leaves their skates) to deliver a blow to the head or neck of an opponent." IIHF Rule 48.3 then reaches a major penalty plus an automatic game misconduct where the referee judges that the player "recklessly endangers their opponent". ⚠️ Read that term the book's way and not the everyday way, because it does not mean "careless" and it does not require intent. The IIHF glossary defines Reckless Endangerment as "[a]ny action that endangers an opponent… acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury", the player being "not required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions"; 48.3 adds that the assessment "shall be based on the severity of the infraction, severity of the contact, the degree of violence and the general reprehensibility involved." USA Hockey Rule 620(a) is the same shape — "A minor plus a misconduct or major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed for head contact to an opponent" — with 620(b) making the major and game misconduct compulsory for reckless endangerment and for anyone who "intentionally or carelessly contacts an opponent in the head, face or neck" — a materially lower bar than recklessness — and 620(c) allowing a match penalty; and Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 opens "There is no type of legal contact to the head, face, or neck." The NHL is the outlier: in the other three books a hit to the head can end your game, and under the IIHF book — which is the British one at every level — it can.

What that same IIHF rule does not do is protect a puck carrier skating with their head down, and this is the half of Rule 48 that changes how you skate rather than how you hit. Four lines below the sentence quoted above, 48.1 reads: "A Player who delivers a bodycheck to an opponent who is skating with the puck with their head down in the direction of the Player and does not use an upward motion or drive their body up into the opponent, shall not be penalized for an 'illegal check to the head'." The avoidability factors point the same way — the referee is to consider "whether the Player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent's body and the head was not 'picked'" and "whether the opponent put themself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable." None of that reduces the checker's obligation under the IIHF book: they must still avoid your head, and what that book declines to penalise is only the square hit with no upward motion. Read the carve-out no wider than that, because the IIHF's own text does not say how the carve-out sits against the triggers. The carve-out excludes upward motion only, while IIHF trigger (III) also catches a checker who extends outward to reach you, and trigger (III)'s second limb catches a checker who "uses any part of the upper body to contact an opponent's head or neck" — which is a description of the very hit the carve-out is about. The IIHF rule gives no ordering language between the two sentences, and no published IIHF interpretation found here resolves it: the IIHF Situation Handbook carries a single Rule 48 entry, on whether a later-discovered injury upgrades a minor, and it does not touch this. Treat the point as unresolved in the published text rather than settled either way. ⚠️ And the same rule writes the other half of the pair, and that half is in your favour: IIHF 48.1 also provides that "When a Player is skating with their head up, whether they are in possession of the puck and may reasonably be expecting impending contact, an opponent does not have the right to hit them to the head or neck." The head-down carve-out is written for the checker; the head-up sentence is written for the player being hit — and the NHL bars an avoidable head hit at its own 48.1 but writes neither of them. ⚠️ Keep your head up — under the IIHF book a legal, square hit with no upward motion that catches you bent over may well not be the checker's foul.

Hockey Canada writes a wider exception than the IIHF's, and it points at you. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 7.7(a) provides that in "Junior and Senior divisions", a player who "ducks to avoid a check" and as a result "is hit in the head area with an otherwise legal check" draws no Head Contact penalty against the checker — and that the referee "may assess a penalty to the player who ducks to avoid a check under Rule 8.7 — Clipping, if appropriate." Hockey Canada Rule 8.7 states that "Players may not crouch down to avoid being bodychecked", and 8.7(a) makes that a Minor — but only as a floor. 8.7(b) makes a major plus a game misconduct mandatory for a clipping infraction that injures an opponent, and discretionary on the degree of violence "including the impact with the ice or boards"; 8.7(c) makes a match penalty mandatory for attempting to injure or injuring deliberately. So a Canadian junior or senior player who ducks can take the penalty while the checker takes none. ⚠️ And this is not Hockey Canada's alone — the IIHF writes a crouching clause too, in the British reader's own book. IIHF Rule 44.1 says a player "may not crouch down near the boards to avoid being bodychecked and as a result, causes an opponent to tumble over them": narrower, because it wants the boards and the checker going over you, but real, with IIHF 44.2 a minor on the degree of violence and IIHF 44.3 a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment. Neither the NHL nor USA Hockey writes any crouching clause at all. That same Hockey Canada interpretation "does not apply to a player who is in a vulnerable position as the result of a legitimate hockey play (e.g. shooting, making or receiving a pass, etc.)", so a low head while you shoot or take a pass is not a duck. No equivalent exception was found in USA Hockey's Playing Rules, and Hockey Canada's is confined by its own words to junior and senior, so the checker's amnesty does not reach Hockey Canada minor or female hockey. Rule 8.7 itself is not confined — its prohibition on crouching to avoid a bodycheck carries no division scope, so the ducker's exposure reaches minor and female hockey too. And no book outside Hockey Canada writes the checker any equivalent automatic amnesty: USA Hockey Rule 620's Note puts the onus on the checker "to avoid placing a vulnerable or defenseless opponent in danger of potential injury", and the Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 preamble requires that head contact be penalised "[r]egardless of the circumstances… at all times." (That absence is a search of the USA Hockey Official Playing Rules, the separate USA Hockey Rules and Casebook, and the Hockey Canada Playing Rules. The Casebook writes the checker no amnesty and no crouching clause either; its only ducking provision is at Rule 639, Situation 5, on a player who "deliberately ducks or leaves their feet for the purpose of contacting an opponent at or below the knees (Clipping)" — which points at the ducker, and on a different trigger again. Where the Casebook does speak, it runs the other way. Rule 620, Situation 1 answers how much force is needed for a head-contact penalty: "The only thing that matters is whether there was contact made to the head, face or neck of the opponent with any part of the body or equipment." And Rule 607, Situation 2 puts a charging penalty on a player who crosses the ice at full speed to hit "an unsuspecting opponent skating up the ice with their head down" — though read that one no wider than its own reasoning, which is the distance and the speed, "for the purpose of punishing a vulnerable or defenseless opponent", and not the opponent's head position on its own.) ⚠️ The NHL and the IIHF do reach the same facts, though — as a factor weighed by the referee, not as a defence that ends the question. Both direct that in determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances to be considered include "[w]hether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact" and "[w]hether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable" (NHL Rule 48.1(iii) and (ii); IIHF Rule 48.1(VII) and (VI) say the same in the plural). That is not an amnesty: it acquits nobody automatically, and neither book attaches any penalty to the player who ducked. What it does mean is that in three of the four books your own late movement can be the reason the checker goes unpenalised — automatically under Hockey Canada, as a weighed factor under the NHL and the IIHF. ⚠️ So, the instruction all of that adds up to: never duck. Head up — chin off your chest — is not standing tall into the hit either. Take it on a wide base with the knees bent, and near the wall get your skates parallel to it and take the contact along your side — your forearm and hip meet the wall, your shoulder and hip turn toward the checker — never the point of your shoulder and never your back to the boards. Keep the whole shoulder off the wall too, if you can. See Body Contact and Battles, which covers head-contact detail.
Fighting (Rule 46) — a five-minute major. In the NHL, fighting is not an automatic ejection; the instigator gets an extra minor plus a misconduct, and the aggressor — the one who keeps throwing punches at a defenceless or unwilling opponent — is ejected, drawing "a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct" under Rule 46.2. That leniency applies to a willing pair, and not to the player who would not stop. Deliberately removing your jersey beforehand is an unsportsmanlike minor plus a game misconduct. The IIHF takes a harder line and says so — "'Fighting' is not part of international ice hockey's DNA" (Rule 46.1) — giving referees "very wide latitude", with a major plus an automatic game misconduct — "at least" that, at the referee's discretion — for a player who persists after being ordered to stop or who resists a linesperson in the discharge of their duties. England Ice Hockey then pins a number to it: in NIHL (all leagues), the SNL and BUIHA Varsity fixtures, "Fighting shall be penalised with a 5-minute Major Penalty", and in NIHL, NIHL1 and NIHL2 any fighting major "in the last 5 minutes of regulation time (including overtime) will also carry an automatic Game Misconduct" (In-House Rules, Section 6). ⚠️ That reaches the plain willing fight, in those three competitions, and nothing else — and that scope is a reading, not something Section 6 states, since it names no rule number; IIHF 46.1 itself reaches the plain willing fight, so five minutes is a floor and not a ceiling — and the current book raised it. In the 2025/26 edition a willing combatant "may be ejected from the game"; in the 2026/27 edition a major plus an automatic game misconduct is "the standard penalty for a Player engaged in a fight" (46.1, repeated at 46.12), waived only for a player the referee judges to have "defended" themselves. Instigator (46.3), aggressor (46.4), sucker-punching (46.5), third man in (46.7), fighting outside the periods (46.9), fighting off the surface (46.11), persisting after being told to stop, and the plain willing fight itself anywhere outside those three competitions all keep their IIHF ejection — 46.1 is a Reference Table 6 entry, so 20.4 attaches the automatic game misconduct to the major. ⚠️ Every clause number in that list is the 2025/26 book's, and the 2026/27 edition reorders Rule 46 so that not one of the six still points where it did — third man in moves from 46.7 to 46.14, instigator 46.3 to 46.10, aggressor 46.4 to 46.2, sucker punch 46.5 to 46.13, fighting outside the periods 46.9 to 46.8, and fighting off the surface 46.11 to 46.7, where 46.11 is now Jerseys. Name the offence to an official rather than the number, unless you know which book they are working from. Table 6 is that same edition's number; the 2026/27 book has none, having merged it into a single Table 5 that still carries the entry. Assume you are gone. See UK and England Rules.

Practically: three things. First, find out whether you are allowed to hit at all, in your own book. USA Hockey Rule 604(a) prohibits body checking "in the 12 & under youth age classifications and below, all Girls'/Women's age classifications and all non-check Adult classifications"; a local governing body "may prohibit body checking in any classification"; and 604(b) makes any game between one of those teams and a body-checking team a no-checking game. Checking there is a minor under 604(c), a major plus a game misconduct under 604(d) where it recklessly endangers an opponent, and 604(e) adds that a match penalty "may also be assessed for body checking in a Competitive Contact category or non-check Adult classification." Read that last limb carefully: the penalty is named for reckless endangerment, but the act it is assessed for is the plain body check — 604(c)'s act, not 604(d)'s reckless one — so the top of the ladder is reachable without anything worse than the check itself. It is "may" rather than "shall", so it is the referee's to reach for rather than automatic. Hockey Canada reaches the same ground by a different route: Rule 7.3 penalises body-checking, and scopes that penalty in its own words — "This rule applies only in divisions of U13 and below, in female hockey, and any other divisions approved by a Member of Hockey Canada." Within those divisions, 7.3(a) assesses a minor to any player who "intentionally body-checks, bumps, shoves, or pushes any opposing player", and 7.3(b) runs above it on two limbs: a major plus a game misconduct "At the discretion of the Referee, based on the degree of violence of the impact" — nobody has to be hurt — and that same pair mandatory where a check that would otherwise be a minor injures. 7.3(c) reaches a match penalty. The IIHF book sets no checking age at all, so a British reader's answer is in their competition regulations rather than in any of these four books — see UK and England Rules. 🇬🇧 And in IHUK competition those regulations do answer it, in a table rather than in a rule. The Junior Rules of Competition format table makes U10 and U12 non-checking and gives U14, U16 and U19 “Full ice, checking, stop clock”; the U10 Rules of Competition states it as a rule instead of a format label, “Bodychecking is NOT allowed” in its matches; the NIHL Rules of Competition — which is titled for “National League Division 1 and 2” and reaches those two divisions only — gives NIHL “Full ice, checking, stop clock”; and the WNIHL Rules of Competition gives both WNIHL U16 and senior WNIHL “Full ice, non-checking, stop clock”, which is tighter than IIHF Rule 101.1, the women's bodychecking rule. ⚠️ Those four documents reach only the competitions they name, and the checking answer for anything else is not in them. Those four do not settle the EIHL, NIHL National, the PNIHL, BUIHA university hockey, or Scottish domestic competition outside the IHUK junior structure, and no regulations were read here for any of those. ⚠️ And "IHUK runs my league" is not the test — IHUK's own In-House Rules reach NIHL National, the SNL and BUIHA Varsity too, and none of these four Rules of Competition covers any of them. If your competition is not one of the four named above, read your own competition's rules before you assume you may hit, and ask your league where you cannot find one. ⚠️ That is about age, and it is not the whole IIHF answer: the book does write a body-checking rule for the women's game, and it starts by permitting the hit rather than banning it. Rule 101.1: "In Women's Hockey 'bodychecking' is allowed when there is a clear intention of playing the puck or attempting to 'gain possession' of the puck with the exception from the situation described in this rule" — and its next paragraph adds that two players in pursuit of the puck "are reasonably allowed to push and lean into each other provided that 'possession of the puck' remains the sole object" of the two players. ⚠️ What it then forbids runs well past the boards, and this is a summary of a rule rather than the whole of it. The boards limb is that where two or more players are competing for possession they "are not allowed to use the boards to make contact with an opponent to eliminate her from the play, push her into the boards, or pin her along the boards". The rule goes on to give a stationary player her ice — "[i]t is up to the opponent to avoid body contact with such a Player", and where she stands between the opponent and the puck "the opponent is obliged to skate around" her — to oblige a puck carrier skating directly at a stationary opponent to "avoid contact", and to make "[a]ny move by a Player to step or glide into an opposing Player" at least a minor. An illegal hit under the rule draws "one of a: (I) Minor penalty (2') (II) Major penalty (5') and automatic game misconduct penalty", so the ejection tier is written into the rule itself. Read the permission and the prohibitions together: this is not a no-contact rule, and it is not a licence to seal somebody to the wall either. The whole of Rule 101.1 is word for word the same in the 2025/26 v1.1 and 2026/27 books, and Body Contact and Battles owns it and sets out every limb. ⚠️ And "no checking" is not "no contact": USA Hockey says so twice, in the Note to 604(c) — "Competitive Contact hockey does not mean 'no contact'" — and in its front matter. Established body position, angling and puck battles remain legal, and the Note adds that "legal competitive contact shall not be penalized under this rule" — but that sentence continues, and the second half is the half that penalises you: "However, deliberate physical contact with an opponent, with no effort to legally play the puck, shall be penalized." And the rule's own Note 1 defines an illegal body check as intentional contact "using overt hip, shoulder, forearm or torso action". Hockey Canada says the same in Rule 7.3's preamble — but note where it draws the line: body contact is "incidental contact of two opposing players in pursuit of the puck on the ice in the same direction", and the next paragraph makes three things body-checking rather than contact: deliberate contact "with opposite-directional force", leaving your skating lane to make it, and — the trap here — "when a player extends an arm, shoulder, or hip after angling an opponent." Angling legally and then extending the shoulder is a body-check under that rule. The rest of this paragraph assumes you are in a checking league.

In a checking league, then: second, position, contact surface and force are all part of the test — not one of them on its own. Three of the four books grade charging on the degree of violence in those words (NHL 42.2, IIHF 42.2 on "the degree of force and violence of the check", Hockey Canada 7.4(b)), and USA Hockey reaches the same place by a different test — 607(b)'s reckless endangerment, and its Note on "accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent". Either way, force is never settled in advance by where your feet were. Trunk on trunk, above their knees and at or below their shoulders — and this is in the British reader's own book, not only the American one. The IIHF's Appendix II, Definition, Terminology & Terms, defines a legal body check as one delivered "only with the trunk of the body (hips and shoulders)" and "above the opponent's knees and at or below the shoulders"; USA Hockey's Declaration of Player Safety uses the same phrases and adds that "the use of the hands, forearm, stick or elbow in delivering a body check is unacceptable". Keep your stick blade below their knees — USA Hockey puts it that way round, "proper body checking technique starts with stick on puck", and 640(d) is the penalty side of the same point. Establish position and arrive while he still has the puck, or do not arrive — and not into a battle. Rule 640(e) makes it a minor to body check "an opponent who is physically engaged for possession of the puck with one or more other players", and its Note is explicit that two or more players contesting a puck "are considered vulnerable or defenseless and are not eligible to be body checked" — a major plus a game misconduct under 640(g) if it recklessly endangers him, a match penalty under 640(h). Having the puck is not the whole test, and a wall or corner scramble is exactly the case the rule excludes. Do not chase across the ice and arrive, and do not think of it as "finishing your check" — USA Hockey names that phrase specifically: "The concept of 'finishing the check' is an unacceptable action as it is one that is meant to intimidate or punish the opponent with no intent to gain possession of the puck." What that does not mean is that a check already being thrown becomes illegal in mid-air: USA Hockey’s own Casebook lets one be finished — on four conditions, and you need all four. Its Standard of Play, Situation 10 offers them as a "general rule of thumb" rather than as a test, so none of this is a distance you can argue afterwards: the checker "first makes an effort to gain possession of the puck"; he is "an arm’s length plus stick length away from the opponent when the puck was dumped"; the check is unavoidable, "meaning it was in the process of being delivered when control of the puck was relinquished"; and he is expected to "minimize the force used in this instance and not take advantage of a vulnerable or defenseless opponent." "It is not acceptable to skate one or two more strides after the puck is gone and then decide to deliver the check." What ends at the release is your licence to add anything to it — a stride, a lean, more force. How narrowly each of the other books draws the same window is set out under Interference above. Situation 23 of the same Standard of Play pulls back the other way: the concept of finishing the check "has no place in youth hockey", and an avoidable one "must be penalized in every instance." Once he no longer controls the puck the obligation flips, and the Declaration of Player Safety says so — "The responsibility is on the player delivering the check to avoid forceful contact (minimize impact) to a vulnerable or defenseless player who is no longer in control of the puck." ⚠️ The sentence to carry out of all of it is the British reader’s own book’s, in the IIHF’s Appendix II definition of a vulnerable position: a skater no longer in control of the puck who is either unaware of or unprepared for the hit is vulnerable, and a bodycheck to a vulnerable opponent "is automatically considered reckless even if that bodycheck would be considered legal to a non-vulnerable opponent." One scope note, because it cuts against the reader here: the numbered rule penalising the ordinary late check, 640(b), is written "(except Adult Male Classifications)" — and 640(g) and 640(h) do not simply close that gap, because 640(g) reaches reckless endangerment only "as a result of any actions falling under Rule 640(b, c, d, e or f)" and 640(h) is confined "under sub-sections (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this rule". What does not carry the exception is 640(e), the battle rule above, which is division-scoped nowhere; and the Declaration of Player Safety, which is written for the whole book and says a check on a vulnerable or defenceless player must be penalised under the boarding, charging, checking-from-behind, head-contact or roughing rules. So the late hit in adult men's hockey loses one named subsection and keeps every other route.

Third, the onus rule on defenceless players is real. If a man is facing the boards, or reaching for a puck, or has just released it, the rulebook puts the responsibility for the outcome on you. Let him go.

Other infractions

Delay of game — puck over the glass (Rule 63.2(iii)) — a minor on any player who shoots or bats the puck directly, non-deflected, out of the playing surface from his defending zone. That is the strict-liability limb, and this rule has a second one that most players have never heard of. ⚠️ Rule 63.2(ii) reaches the same minor from anywhere on the ice — it is assessed "on any player who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand, leg, foot, arm, or stick, etc.) the puck outside the playing area (from anywhere on the ice surface) during the play or after a stoppage of play", and IIHF Rule 63.2(II) carries the same clause, in the plural. Note how much wider it is than (iii): (iii) reaches only "his hand or his stick" and only your own end, where (ii) reaches a leg, foot or arm as well, every zone, and the period after the whistle. So outside your defending zone you are safe only if it was an accident — a deliberate flip out of the neutral or attacking zone to kill a shift, or a puck fired away after the whistle, is two minutes. On that deliberate limb all four books agree, and none of them limits it by zone: USA Hockey 610(c) — a minor on any player or goalkeeper who "delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck outside the playing area, including after a stoppage of play" — and Hockey Canada 10.1(ii), a player who "deliberately shoots, bats, or throws the puck outside the playing surface". The after-the-whistle words are in all four books — but Hockey Canada's are in a different rule, and it is worth knowing why. Three of the four write them into the delay-of-game rule itself: the NHL's and the IIHF's 63.2(II), and USA Hockey's 610(c). Hockey Canada 10.1(ii) does not carry them, and Rule 10.1 says how far it can go — 10.1(d): "No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for Delay of Game", and 10.1(e): "No Game Misconduct penalty may be assessed for Delay of Game." So Hockey Canada files the after-whistle shot under unsportsmanlike conduct instead, and writes it out expressly. Rule 11.1, preamble item (v) lists "Shooting the puck out of the playing area, after the whistle" — a Minor or Bench Minor under 11.1(a), and a Misconduct under 11.1(d)(i) for a player who "[p]ersists in Unsportsmanlike Conduct, after receiving a Minor penalty under Rule 11.1 (a)"; 11.1(b) and 11.1(c) rule out a major and a match penalty for it. ⚠️ That (d)(i) wording is not a promise of one free minor first, and the rule's own Note says so. Note 1 to 11.1(d): "A Referee is not required to assess a Minor penalty under this rule before assessing a Misconduct penalty, but may assess either penalty initially", and Note 1 to 11.1(e) says the same of the Game Misconduct — "not required to assess a Minor or Misconduct penalty under this rule before assessing a Game Misconduct penalty, but may assess either penalty initially." So the ladder is the range available to the referee, not a sequence you are walked up. That is an express provision, not an inference from the 10.1 preamble. ⚠️ And USA Hockey builds a ladder over the same act that runs to a match penalty. This is the part that is not two minutes. Rule 601(a)(4) makes it a minor for unsportsmanlike conduct to "[s]hoot[] the puck after the whistle, if in the opinion of the Official such shot was avoidable". 601(c)(10) is a misconduct for a player who "[s]hoots or bats the puck outside of the playing area during a stoppage of play (when not done in protest of an official's decision or in the direction of a spectator)". 601(d)(7) makes that same act a game misconduct "when done in protest of an official's decision", and 601(d)(9) makes a game misconduct of a puck shot "in the general direction of an on-ice official, or in the direction of a spectator during a stoppage of play". The Note to 601(d) reaches a match penalty for a player who "shoots the puck directly at an official or spectator in a manner that recklessly endangers the official or spectator". ⚠️ Which of 610(c) and 601(c)(10) governs the plain after-whistle clear, USA Hockey does not say. The two rules describe the same act at different tiers, in different sections, and neither refers to the other. No official interpretation deciding it was found: the USA Hockey Casebook was searched for it, and its Rule 610 situations reach a puck put out of play only during play — Situation 5 turns on a goalkeeper who batted a rebound out of the rink without ever having gained control, "No. Rule Reference 610(c)" — while none of its Rule 601 situations concerns a puck put outside the playing area at all. That is a reading of two rules side by side, not a ruling. Assume the misconduct is available and do not test it. ⚠️ And do not convert that misconduct into "ten minutes": USA Hockey Rule 404's Note authorises affiliates and governing bodies, "(Except for Adults)", to reduce a misconduct's length where periods are short, so the number is your classification's rather than the book's. The NHL and the IIHF write no rung above the minor for this at all. NHL Rule 63.9 lists the delay-of-game infractions — "[d]eliberately shooting the puck out of play" is the first of them — and scopes the whole list to "a penalty (minor, bench minor, penalty shot or awarded goal)". The nearest misconduct either book carries is for a different act: knocking or shooting the puck "out of the reach of an official who is retrieving it" (NHL 39.4(ii); IIHF 39.4(II)). (That negative is a search of both books for the puck leaving the playing area, for shooting and batting the puck, and of Rules 39, 63 and 75 read through; a puck sent at an official is reached in both, but as supplementary discipline under 40.4 rather than as a rung of this rule.) The strict-liability limb is the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (Rule 65.2(iii)): USA Hockey and Hockey Canada reach a skater's accidental clear from his own end not at all — under USA Hockey Rule 631(d) "if the puck is accidentally shot or deflected out of play … a last play face-off will occur in the zone where the puck was shot or the deflection occurred", a draw rather than a penalty — though Hockey Canada 10.1(v) names a goaltender who shoots or bats it "directly out of the playing surface, with their stick", and unlike 10.1(ii) it carries no deliberateness word of its own. ⚠️ Whether that silence makes it strict liability is a reading of the rule's structure, not something the book settles, because Rule 10.1's preamble reaches only a player or team who "deliberately causes a stoppage of play or delays the restart of play" and 10.1(a) assesses the minor on a player who "in the opinion of the Referee, is deliberately delaying the game" — and none of the twelve Interpretations to Rule 10.1(a) settles the intent question. ⚠️ One of them is addressed to this limb, though, and it grants the goaltender two escapes worth knowing. Interpretation 5 — "Clarifications as it pertains to goaltenders shooting or batting the puck directly out of play" — provides that where the goaltender "shoots the puck directly out of the playing surface where there is no glass, such as at the Players' Bench or Penalty Bench, or if the puck touches the glass or deflects off a player or official, no penalty will be assessed"; and it adds a rink condition on top — "[i]n order to assess a penalty to a goaltender under this provision, both ends of the rink must be similar. If there is glass at one end only, then the rule would not apply." Those escapes are about where the puck went and what it touched. Intent is not among them, so the reading question stands: under Hockey Canada, assume the harsher reading of (v) and ask your league. On the (iii) limb the determining factor is where the puck was when you hit it. Over the glass behind the bench counts; into the bench does not; directly off a faceoff does not; and it does not apply where there is no glass. ⚠️ The IIHF writes the bench clause wider than the NHL and then narrows the carve-out further in its Handbook, so do not read the bench as somewhere to aim. Its Rule 63.2(III) carves out "except where there is no protective glass" where the NHL writes "no glass", and assesses the penalty "when the puck is shot over the protective glass surrounding the Players' bench" where the NHL writes "'behind'" — "surrounding" appears to reach glass at the sides of the bench that "behind" does not obviously reach, though neither book explains the difference and no officiating source was found that settles the reading. And the IIHF Situation Handbook, at Situation 63.24 in the same words in the 2025/26 (v1.1) and 2026/27 editions, takes a clear that goes over the glass and lands in the Players' Bench and still calls the minor: "the determining factor when deciding whether a delay of game penalty is to be assessed, is where the puck leaves the playing surface. If you use an imaginary plane that continues upwards to the roof from the top of the glass, should the puck break that plane as it goes out of play, then a minor penalty is to be assessed regardless as to the final resting place of the puck. When the puck is shot directly into the Players' Bench (where there is no glass), no penalty is to be assessed." Situation 63.28 adds the glove: a player whose stick has broken and who scoops the puck over the glass behind the bench with a hand takes the minor, "considered shooting or batting the puck with the hand resulting in the puck leaving the playing surface." Situation 63.3 is the one that helps — where the puck "clears the glass at a point in the Penalty Bench where the glass is lower than the normal height around the rink, no penalty shall be assessed." The Handbook ranks below the rule book on its own Foreword, so read these as how it is officiated rather than as the rule. ⚠️ One caution for the reader under IIHF rules: do not assume a skate falls outside this penalty. The strict-liability limb reaches only a player who shoots or bats the puck "(using their hand or stick)" directly out of his defending zone (IIHF Rule 63.2(III)). But the IIHF Situation Handbook 2025/26 puts exactly this case — "A defending player, skating towards the attacking player, kicks at the puck as it goes by to block the shot or pass. The puck goes directly off the foot and over the glass. Does the minor penalty for delay of game apply?" (Situation 63.19) — and Version 1.1 of August 2025 answers "Yes.", citing no rule. Version 1.0 of June 2025 answered the opposite: "No. Rule 63.2 (III) states that the player must have shot or batted the puck using the hand or the stick." The answer has since held across a season boundary: the 2026/27 Handbook (Version 1.0, June 2026) puts Situation 63.19 in the same words and answers "Yes." again, while the 2026/27 Rulebook's 63.2(III) is unchanged, still naming only "their hand or stick". ⚠️ Whether that is a contradiction at all turns on a single word, and neither document defines it. The deliberate limb already quoted, 63.2(II), reaches a "leg, foot, arm" from anywhere on the ice. If "deliberately" there attaches to the act — the kick — then a player who kicks at the puck is inside (II), the Handbook's "Yes" is (II) and nothing conflicts. If it attaches to the outcome — meaning to put the puck out — then (II) does not reach him, only (III) is left, and (III) names hand or stick alone. The Handbook does not say which reading it is using, because it cites no rule. ⚠️ And 63.19 is not the Handbook's only answer on a kicked puck. Situation 63.34 — "A defending player in the defending zone kicks the puck causing it to go over the glass and out of play. Does the minor penalty for delay of game apply?" — answers "Yes", also citing no rule, and does so in all three editions alike: v1.0 and v1.1 of 2025/26, and 2026/27. So v1.0 carried both answers at the same time. Why 63.19 changed is stated nowhere, and any account of it would be inference about an unstated intention; what is on the page is that the Handbook now answers the kicked puck the same way twice. ⚠️ One Handbook answer runs the other way, and in the goalkeeper's favour. Situation 63.29 — a goalkeeper moving post to post whose stick save propels the puck over the glass — answers "No. The goalkeeper was simply making a save and did not 'shoot' the puck over the glass. Rule 63.2. talks about deliberate, the save cannot be seen as falling under this criteria." It gives two reasons, and one of them, deliberateness, is a word 63.2(III) does not contain, so on that reasoning the Handbook is reading (III) narrower than its own text. It is in the same words in all three editions. The Handbook ranks itself below the rule book — its Foreword says "in case of any contradictions, the valid IIHF Rulebook is always the basis" — so where the two do conflict the rule text governs and the hand-or-stick words stand; but the document your officials are trained on has answered the kicked puck "Yes" in every edition of 63.34 and in the last two of 63.19, so play as though a skate can cost you the two minutes, and clear it with your stick. This is about the IIHF's documents only. The NHL publishes its own situation handbook, which has not been read for this document, so nothing here says how the NHL would answer the same case. This penalty is challengeable if the puck deflected on the way out (Rule 38.2(d)), and a failed challenge adds a further minor.
Delay of game — other forms (Rule 63.2) — freezing the puck unnecessarily, deliberately shooting or batting the puck out of the playing area from anywhere on the ice, in play or after a stoppage (63.2(ii), above), deliberately displacing the net, a skater falling on or gathering the puck into his body, adjusting equipment.
Delay of game — goalie outside the trapezoid (NHL Rules 27.8, 63.2(viii); IIHF Rule 27.7) — see section 7.
Goalie participating in the play beyond the centre red line (NHL Rule 27.7; IIHF Rule 27.6; USA Hockey Rule 407(c); Hockey Canada Rule 4.13(c), penalised as interference under its Rule 8.3(a)) — a minor in all four books, but the books split on whether the puck's position or the goalie's skates decide it. See section 7.
Too many men (Rule 74) — covered above.
Unsportsmanlike conduct (Rule 75) — obscene or abusive language or gestures directed at any person, hair-pulling, biting, grabbing a face mask, throwing objects onto the ice from the bench or another off-ice location (on-ice throwing is Rule 53: 53.6 is a match penalty where a player "attempts to or deliberately injures" by throwing a stick, and 53.7 awards a penalty shot where a defending player throws at the puck or puck carrier in his own defending zone and no goal results — and 53.7 does not stop at the defending zone: the same rule awards the shot for a breakaway in the neutral or attacking zone broken up by a thrown object, and 53.8 awards a goal outright where that happens with the goalkeeper pulled for an extra attacker), or sitting on the boards with skates exposed during play — that last one, and only that one, gets the team a single warning first; nothing else on this list does. Escalates: minor, then misconduct, then game misconduct if you persist — though 75.4(v) and 75.5(vi) preface that ladder with "In general", and both subrules carry limbs that start at a misconduct or a game misconduct with nothing below them, so it is the usual course rather than an order the referee must follow (the un-gated limbs are listed under Talking to officials). ⚠️ An obscene gesture skips the ladder altogether: it is a game misconduct on the first offence in the NHL (75.5(ii)), the PWHL (77.5(ii)), USA Hockey (601(d)(2)) and the IIHF (75.5(II), and 39.5(VIII) where it is aimed at an official). ⚠️ And do not read that escalation as the ceiling, and never touch an opponent's cage. The NHL's own clause covering those physical acts ends with a route out of it — "If warranted, and specifically when injury results, the Referee may apply Rule 21 – Match Penalties" — and under USA Hockey a facemask grab is not on this escalation at all: Rule 622 — Holding an Opponent, which is where to look for it — puts a major plus a game misconduct on any player who uses their hand "to rub, grab or hold the facemask of an opponent" (622(b)), and 622(c) allows a match penalty for reckless endangerment "for grabbing or holding the facemask". And a USA Hockey game misconduct is not just tonight: Rule 404(b) says the player "shall also be suspended for the team's next game (the game already appearing on the schedule of that team at the time of the infraction)", automatically — and where the game misconduct comes from a second major in the game, "there shall be a minimum two-game suspension." The other four books write it too, and each prices some part of it harder. IIHF 75.2(II) lists "grabbing hold of a face mask" too, and it adds banging a stick on the boards or glass — but not biting, and that is not leniency: the IIHF files biting under Rule 23.8(IV), where "biting an opponent or spectator" can result in a game misconduct, where the NHL leaves it on this minor-penalty list. It routes the face-mask grab onward to a differently named rule on a different trigger: its pointer reads "Rule 21 – Dangerous Actions", not the NHL's Rule 21 Match Penalties, and it fires "if the Referee classifies physical offences committed to be serious and severe, based on the degree of force", with no injury required. IIHF 21.1 is a major plus an automatic game misconduct. The PWHL files it under roughing: Rule 51.3 makes grabbing an opponent's "facial protection, helmet, chin strap, or throat protector" a major "with a minimal degree of violence", and 51.5 adds a mandatory game misconduct. Hockey Canada does not file this under unsportsmanlike conduct at all — Rule 7.1, Attempt to Injure or Deliberate Injury, makes grabbing "the facial protector, helmet, chin strap, or throat protector" a double minor even at a minimal degree of violence, a major plus game misconduct on the referee's reading of the violence and mandatory if it injures, and a match penalty where it is done "with a moderate or high degree of violence and/or using this to gain an advantage or to inflict punishment or injury". CARHA Hockey files it under the same heading, Attempt to Injure or Deliberate Injury: its Rule 48(d) makes grabbing or pulling an opponent's "hair, facial hair, facial protector, helmet, or chin strap" a double minor, and a match penalty where the player "uses this as an advantage or to inflict punishment or injury". Do not count on two minutes in any of them. The NHL's escalation clause turns on "if warranted" and only names injury as its clearest case, and Rule 21's own trigger is a player who "deliberately attempts to injure", which needs no injury at all — the NHL index lists a facemask grab under Injury with a pointer to 21.1. Never touch an opponent's cage. Hair-pulling sits in the same clause as the facemask in the NHL and IIHF books, so the same escalation reaches it, and Hockey Canada names the two together at 7.1(b) and 7.1(c)(ii), CARHA at 48(d), and the PWHL at 51.3 — a roughing major, with the game misconduct 51.5 says "must also be imposed". USA Hockey does not use the word at all, so do not carry 622(b) across to it.
Biting — no book treats this as an ordinary foul, and the five books that name it route it five ways. The NHL lists it in the unsportsmanlike clause above, and its index routes biting to Rule 21.1 match penalties too. The IIHF does not list it there but reaches it at 23.8(IV), where it "can also result in" a game misconduct. The PWHL makes it a major plus a mandatory game misconduct: Rule 51.3 puts a roughing major on a player who "bites her opponent", and 51.5 says a game misconduct "must also be imposed" — and a bite that is an attempt to injure can go to a match penalty under its Rule 21.1. Hockey Canada is the most direct — its Interpretation 2 to Rule 7.1(e) says "Biting is an attempt to injure. A Match penalty will be assessed…" CARHA Hockey does not name it, but expect a match penalty under its Rule 48(a), which reaches any player who "deliberately injures or attempts to injure an opponent … in any manner". USA Hockey does not use the word anywhere in its Playing Rules — but its separate Casebook rules on it outright, twice, of an opponent. Casebook Rule 602, Situation 3 puts the question directly — "If a player 'bites' an opponent during an altercation, should this be considered reckless endangerment and a match penalty assessed?" — and answers "Yes. Rule Reference 602(a)." Its stated reason: "The only possible purpose of this action is to endanger the opponent, so a match penalty must be assessed." 602(a) puts a match penalty on any player who "recklessly endangers or attempts to injure any opposing player". ⚠️ And in a fight the two penalties stack rather than merge. Casebook Rule 615, Situation 3 has one player bite another on the finger before the Linesperson can break the fight up, and rules that the referee assesses both "the match penalty (attempt to injure) and major plus game misconduct for fighting" — "Rule References 615(a) and 602(a)." (Its third use, Casebook Rule 601, Situation 23, is a player biting a Linesperson: a match penalty under 601(e.1).) USA Hockey's own discipline policy puts a 602(a) match penalty in its most severe category. On the printed suspension ranges it may be the harshest of the five.
Racial slurs, taunts and sexual remarks — ⚠️ every book read here reaches an ejection for this, four of the five write it as mandatory, and the NHL's is the one that does not. Under the IIHF book — the British reader's — the escalation is inside the minor's own clause. Rule 75.2(I) assesses the minor for obscene, profane or abusive language or gestures "directed at any person" and then adds "An additional game misconduct penalty for use of obscene gestures, racial slurs or taunts or sexual remarks – refer to Rule 75.5 – Game Misconduct Penalty." Rule 75.5 is written as mandatory — "Game misconduct penalties shall be assessed" — at 75.5(II), for "[a]ny Player, Coach or team personnel who uses obscene gestures, racial slurs or taunts or sexual remarks, during or after the game, on or off the ice and any location while in the arena and its connected premises", with a report to the Proper Authorities on top. So it is a minor and an ejection, it does not have to be said on the ice, and it does not have to be said to an official. ⚠️ The IIHF's two clauses do not quite agree, and the discretion is not the half to rely on: its 23.8(II) lists "racial taunts or slurs or sexual remarks" among infractions that "can also result in" a game misconduct, where 75.5 says shall. Both IIHF editions — 2025/26 (Version 1.1) and 2026/27 — carry 75.2(I), 75.5(II) and 23.8(II) in identical words. The NHL writes the loosest tier of the five. Its own mandatory game misconduct at 75.5(ii) is for "obscene gestures" alone; the racial limb sits instead at 23.8(ii), "racial taunts or slurs", inside a list of infractions that "can also result in a game misconduct penalty being assessed". Table 8, the NHL's own summary of game misconducts, does not carry the row at all — read in full, its nearest entry is (xx) "Obscene language or gestures" — and "sexual remarks" is not that book's language anywhere. ⚠️ The other three books go past a game misconduct. USA Hockey makes it a match penalty — Rule 601(e)(3): "A match penalty shall be assessed to any player or team official who … [u]ses language that is hateful or discriminatory in nature anywhere in the rink before, during or after the game" — and its Note has the officials file a game report within 24 hours and leaves the offender "suspended until their case has been dealt with by the proper authorities"; its front matter says the same, that such language "will be penalized with an automatic match penalty". Hockey Canada files it as maltreatment rather than unsportsmanlike conduct, at Rule 11.4 – Discrimination: a Gross Misconduct to any player or team official who "engages in taunts, insults, or intimidation based on discriminatory grounds", with those grounds enumerated — "Race, national or ethnic origin, skin colour, or language spoken", religion, age, "Sex, sexual orientation or gender identity / expression", marital or familial status, genetic characteristics and disability. Its Interpretation 1 gives the referee a two-question test and says that where both answers are "yes" the Gross Misconduct "must be assessed", and its Note 2 stacks it "in addition to any other penalties". That is the dressing room for the balance of the game (4.9(a)), and 4.9(b) adds an automatic suspension — "a minimum of the next regular league/play-off game or seven days" — for one in the last ten minutes, in overtime, or after the game. CARHA Hockey lands in the same place, at Rule 46(g): "verbal taunts, insults or intimidation based on discriminatory grounds (race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, language)" is a Gross Misconduct "which may result in an indefinite suspension", and its Rule 33(d) keeps the player out of further games "until their case has been dealt with by the League or Tournament Committee" — binding CARHA-affiliated leagues and nobody else. Conduct aimed at an official is a separate channel again, under Rule 39 – Abuse of Officials in the NHL and IIHF books and Rule 601 in USA Hockey's.
Diving / embellishment (Rule 64) — a minor on any player who blatantly dives, embellishes a fall or reaction, or feigns injury. A goalie who deliberately initiates contact with an attacker, or acts to make incidental contact look like more, can be penalised under this rule too. 🇬🇧 Under the In-House Rules it costs you twelve minutes, not two, and this is new for 2026-27 — but that is not the Elite League's answer. The IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 amend Rule 64 in one line — "Adding a misconduct to a minor. The required call is now 2 plus 10" — so an embellishment call under those rules is a minor plus a ten-minute misconduct. The 2025-26 edition had no Rule 64 amendment at all. ⚠️ The Elite League keeps the bare minor. The In-House Rules never name that league, and the EIHL Casebook writes the IIHF tier straight through — "A player who embellishes a foul or pretends to have been fouled by an opponent will be assessed a minor penalty" — with no misconduct attached. What that league adds sits off the ice instead: "Regardless of the call at ice level, DOPS has the ability to fine players in situations where players feign an, [sic] embellish, enhance or dive within a game. The fact a player received a 'Diving' penalty within a game by an on-ice official, does not automatically mean a fine will ensue." ⚠️ And do not assume the player you dived on goes to the box with you. The same entry instructs officials that "We would prefer that on a play where you feel a player dived to try and persuade you into making a call, that you ONLY take the player who dived", while allowing that "if a player embellished (enhanced) a call, there will be times where you must take a player from each team." Both of those are readings of IIHF Rule 64.2, whose own penalty clause is a minor in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions alike: "A minor penalty shall be imposed on a Player who attempts to draw a penalty by their actions (“diving / embellishment”)."
Closing your hand on the puck (Rule 67.2) — you may catch the puck out of the air, but you must immediately place or knock it down to the ice. It is a minor if you catch it and skate with it, if you cover it on the ice to conceal it, or if you pick it up off the ice during play. USA Hockey splits this differently: Rule 618(a) makes a closed hand that is not immediately dropped a stoppage and last-play faceoff rather than a penalty — but covering a loose puck on the ice with your hand is a minor there (Rule 614(a) and its Note), and so is picking the puck up (618(a)) — and it still makes a hand closed on a puck in the crease a penalty shot or optional minor. Hockey Canada 10.2(a)(iii) gates its minor on the closed hand "gain[ing] an advantage". If a skater falls on or gathers a puck that is itself inside his own goal crease, it is a penalty shot (Rule 67.4); outside the crease it is a minor. The deciding factor is where the puck is, not where the player is — Rule 63.6 says so in terms: "If the puck is outside the crease and gathered into the body of a player (other than the goalkeeper) who is inside the crease, minor penalty." Note: this is a penalty, not a faceoff violation — the fact that it often happens at a draw does not change what it is. ⚠️ And if you are one of the two taking that draw, the permission this bullet opens with is suspended for you. The note to NHL and IIHF Rule 67.2, printed again inside the face-off rule as Rule 76.5, bars "the two players involved in the actual face-off (the centers)" from playing the puck with their hand "until such time as a third player (from either team) has at least touched the puck." That is playing it, not merely closing on it, and it falls on the two takers and on nobody else on the ice. No counterpart was found in USA Hockey or Hockey Canada — see the note under Sources for exactly what was searched.
Hand pass (Rule 79) — you may bat or push the puck with an open hand, but play is stopped if you direct it to a teammate and your team then gains possession. No hand pass is called in your own defending zone — that is a free tool for a defenceman under pressure. The two centres at a faceoff may not play the puck with a hand at all — not merely bat it — until a third player from either team has touched it (the note to NHL and IIHF Rule 67.2, printed again at Rule 76.5), and a taker who "attempts to win the face-off by batting the puck with their hand" takes a minor for delay of game — faceoff violation (Rule 67.2).
High-sticking the puck (Rule 80) — playing the puck with your stick above shoulder height. The whistle is conditional, not automatic: under Rule 80.1 play stops "when a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team" (including the player who struck it), directly or by deflection. Otherwise play continues — and it expressly continues if you batted it to an opponent or a defender batted it into his own net. A goal cannot be scored by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar — and the reference height for the goal is the crossbar, not the shoulders. ⚠️ Hockey Canada turns this puck rule into a person rule in two of its divisions, and that is the one place where a swing at a high puck stops being a mere stoppage. Its Rule 6.9(c): “In Minor of Female divisions, any player who high-sticks or attempts to high-stick the puck and, in doing so, contacts an opposing player with their stick, will be penalized under Rule 7.6 – Head Contact.” (“Minor of Female” is the book’s own slip for or.) So in Hockey Canada minor and female hockey a missed swing at a puck above your shoulders that catches somebody is judged under the head-contact rule, whose preamble says it “supersedes any other rules, with the exception of Rule 7.10 – Fighting”: a minor for accidental contact, a double minor for intentional, a mandatory major plus game misconduct where head contact that would otherwise be a minor injures (7.6(b)), and a match penalty at 7.6(c). Minor and female divisions only — 6.9(c) states that scope in its own words, and no such routing appears in the NHL’s Rule 80, either IIHF edition’s Rule 80, USA Hockey’s 621(d) or CARHA’s 62(d), each of which keeps the puck case a stoppage rather than a penalty. Adult play under Hockey Canada is not covered by it, and the stick-fouls list above has what is.

Broken sticks

This is a penalty, it catches beginners constantly, and almost nobody is taught it.

A broken stick is one which, in the opinion of the referee, is "unfit for normal play" (Rule 10.3). That is a judgement, not a definition — a shaft snapped in half is obvious, but so is a blade hanging off, and a stick you think is still usable may not be.

The player rule (Rule 10.3):

You may keep playing without a stick. Rule 10.3 says so in terms: "A player without a stick may participate in the game." There is nothing wrong with backchecking, blocking a lane or finishing a check empty-handed.
What you may not do is keep hold of the broken one. "A player whose stick is broken may participate in the game provided he drops the broken stick. A minor penalty shall be imposed for an infraction of this rule." So the instant it goes, let go of it — do not carry it to the bench while the play is still live — and under the IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27, do not carry it at all — and above all do not play the puck with the stub. This is the version that costs beer-leaguers two minutes: they break a stick in the corner, hang on to it out of instinct, and poke at the puck with what is left.
Getting a replacement. You may take one handed to you from your own bench, handed to you by a teammate on the ice, or you may pick up your own unbroken stick, or a teammate's, off the ice. What is penalised is that you "throw or shoot a stick to a teammate on the ice" — the IIHF's version of the same rule spells the same prohibition out as "throw, toss, slide or shoot" — or pick up and play with an opponent's stick. A skater also may not play using a goalkeeper's stick. Each of those is a minor.
If a stick is thrown to you from the bench, you are not the one penalised — you may use it; the person who threw it earns a bench minor.
🇬🇧 Under the IHUK In-House Rules a broken stick must go on the ice the instant it breaks, and you may not carry it anywhere — this is new for 2026-27, and it is not the Elite League's rule — there IIHF Rule 10.3 governs instead. The IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 add a Rule 10.3 that the 2025-26 edition did not have — "Skating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted under IHUK In-House Rules. A player whose stick is broken must drop their stick immediately. Failure to do so will incur a 2min penalty for illegal equipment" — so the USA Hockey allowance set out below, which lets you carry a broken stick to your bench on conditions, is not yours: the In-House rule writes no proximity test and no out-of-play test, because it reaches the act "anywhere on the ice." Hockey Canada writes the same flat drop at Rule 3.2(a) — "A player whose stick has been broken must drop all pieces of the broken stick to the ice immediately" — penalised under its Rule 10.6 Illegal Equipment. ⚠️ The In-House rule is the skater rule only, headed "Broken Stick: Player"; IHUK writes no goalkeeper counterpart, and its Introduction makes silence adoption — "Unless otherwise stated, all rules will be enforced in line with the IIHF Rule Book" — so on the document's own terms IIHF Rule 10.4 still governs a British goalie. In practice this changes nothing for you if you already do what this section says: stick breaks, hand opens.

The goalkeeper rule is different, and it is the difference that matters (Rule 10.4):

Under the NHL and IIHF books a goalie may carry on playing with a broken stick until a stoppage, or until a teammate legally hands them a new one. A goalie is not required to drop it — the opposite of the skater rule. ⚠️ That permission is the NHL's and the IIHF's, and neither of the other two books gives it to you. USA Hockey writes no equivalent of it, and Hockey Canada bars it outright — Rule 3.2(c): "A goaltender may not continue to play with a broken stick of any kind." Under either of those books a goalie who plays on with a broken stick takes a minor.
The replacement must be passed hand to hand. A teammate may not throw or shoot it to them; doing so is a minor to that teammate for throwing the stick, not to the goalie for receiving it.
A goalie may not go to the bench for a replacement. They must get it from a teammate on the ice. And a goalie may play with a skater's stick in the meantime, until a proper goalkeeper's stick reaches them. ⚠️ Three books write the bench bar in terms; Hockey Canada does not — but stay in your net under all four. NHL Rule 10.4 and IIHF Rule 10.4 carry that sentence to the same effect, in their own words: the IIHF's is "A goalkeeper whose stick is 'broken or illegal' may not go to the Players' bench for a replacement but must receive their stick from a teammate as described above", and the NHL's is the same sentence with "his stick" and without the closing cross-reference. USA Hockey 605(c) writes it narrower and attaches a price: "A goalkeeper whose stick is broken may not go to the players' bench for a replacement during a stoppage of play, but must receive their stick from a teammate. For an infraction of this rule a minor penalty for delay of game shall be assessed to the goalkeeper." ⚠️ Hockey Canada writes no bench bar, so do not cite it for one — the bar it does write, further down, is on playing on with a broken stick, which is a different rule. Its Rule 3.2(b), the clause that says where a replacement stick may come from, is written for "A player"; 3.2(c) requires only that "[a]t the next stoppage of play, the goaltender must receive a regular goaltender's stick", without saying from where; and Interpretation 1 to 3.2(c) runs the other way, permissively — a teammate "may carry a new stick back to the goaltender, allowing the goaltender to receive a new goaltender's stick without proceeding to the Players' Bench" (the same ruling appears again at Interpretation 5 to Rule 10.6(a) / 3.2). It prices the trip by a different route instead, and the advice survives intact. Rule 10.1's delay-of-game list reaches "[a] goaltender who goes to the Players' Bench to adjust any equipment without being replaced by the alternate goaltender"; Interpretation 10 to 10.1(a) has the referee warn a goaltender who asks to go that "if they go, they must be replaced by the alternate goaltender"; and Interpretation 11 to 10.1(a) prices it whatever the reason — once the referee notices the goaltender at the bench, the team must "replace the goaltender with the alternate goaltender, keep the original goaltender in the net and be assessed a Minor penalty, play with six players, or take their time-out, if allowed." So under Hockey Canada the trip is not forbidden; it costs you your place in net, or two minutes. Take the stick from a teammate in every book. The separate permission to use a skater's stick in the meantime does hold in all four: USA Hockey's Casebook at Rule 605, Situation 5 allows it "[a]s long as the stick does not exceed the maximum measurements set forth for goalkeeper sticks", and Hockey Canada 3.2(c) allows "a player's stick that has been handed to them until the next stoppage of play", a stick that "will not be considered illegal equipment", with a proper goalkeeper's stick required at that stoppage.

Practically: as a skater, train the reflex — stick breaks, hand opens. Get to the bench for a new one if you can do it without leaving a hole, and play the shift stickless if you cannot. As a defenceman losing a stick in your own zone, drop it, get your body into the lane and let a forward hand you theirs. As a goalie, the practical answer does not vary by book: you are not going to the bench for one, so call for a stick from a teammate on the ice and play blocker, glove and body until it arrives. As a forward whose defenceman has lost a stick in front of the net, hand yours over — that is what the rule contemplates, and you can go to the bench far more cheaply than they can.

Rule-set differences:

IIHF Rules 10.3 and 10.4 reach the same results as the NHL's, but they are not the same words and they add two things. The opening clause of 10.4 is the IIHF's own: a goalie may play on "until they have one legally handed to them by a teammate" where the NHL writes "until he has one legally provided to him by a teammate" — and the IIHF then spells the method out, "The stick must be passed from hand to hand to the goalkeeper by a teammate on the ice", where the NHL says only that the teammate "cannot throw or shoot it to the goalkeeper". Hand to hand is the answer under both. The first addition is at 10.4: an intact stick a goalie has accidentally dropped may be pushed or slid to them along the ice by a nearby teammate, provided it does not interfere with play. The second is at 10.3, where the IIHF spells the throwing bar out more fully than the NHL does — it penalises a player who "throw, toss, slide or shoot a stick to a teammate (skater) on the ice", where the NHL's list is "throws or shoots" alone. Read the two together and the contrast is the useful part: a stick slid to a skater is named as a minor, while an intact one slid to the goalie who dropped it is expressly allowed.
USA Hockey Rule 605 is stricter in two ways worth knowing. First, the replacement sources are narrower: 605(b) allows a replacement "only … from the player's bench or from a teammate on the ice" — it does not carry the NHL's express permission to pick a loose stick up off the ice. Second, not knowing your stick is broken is not a defence. The rule text allows "reasonable time to be aware that the stick is broken", but the casebook is blunt about the limit, at Rule 605, Situation 2: a player "is accountable for their actions, so the minor penalty shall be assessed if they participate in the play in any manner … there is no provision of the rule that allows them to legally participate in play." "Participate" is defined there as playing or attempting to play the puck, body-checking or attempting to, or "continuing any action that directly affects the play." You may carry the broken stick to the bench, but only if you are close to it, out of the play, and go immediately — and Situation 3 adds a condition the others do not: not if you would have to "go a great distance and/or in the proximity of opposing players", in which case "the stick should be dropped or a penalty assessed." ⚠️ That situation also gives the reason the rule exists, and it is not bookkeeping: "The intent of the rule is to manage the safety of all of the players participating in the game – a broken stick can certainly be considered a safety hazard." The book does not say what the hazard is, and this guide does not fill that in for it — what it does say is that the drop-it rule is a safety rule. ⚠️ That carry is USA Hockey's alone — no other book here writes one. The IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 forbid it in terms, at their own Rule 10.3: "Skating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted under IHUK In-House Rules. A player whose stick is broken must drop their stick immediately. Failure to do so will incur a 2min penalty for illegal equipment". Hockey Canada Rule 3.2(a) requires you to "drop all pieces of the broken stick to the ice immediately" — though its own Note 1 adds that no penalty follows where a player discards the pieces "by tossing them to the side of the playing surface (not over the boards) in such a way that they do not interfere with play or opposing players". And the NHL and IIHF Rule 10.3 quoted above grants no carry either — it permits you to participate only once you have dropped it.
USA Hockey's goalkeeper clause (605(c)) covers only where the stick comes from — the goalie may not go to the bench for one during a stoppage and must receive it from a teammate, on pain of a minor for delay of game. It contains no equivalent of the NHL's Rule 10.4 permission to keep playing with a broken stick, and 605(a) is written to cover "a player or goalkeeper" — "Any player whose stick is broken must drop their stick prior to participating in the play. A player or goalkeeper shall be allowed reasonable time to be aware that the stick is broken." The Casebook writes a goalkeeper no allowance either: its Rule 605 situations reach the goalkeeper only at Situation 5, which is about which stick they may use once theirs has broken, and Rule 301, Situation 6 answers the same question again. ⚠️ On the rule as written, a USA Hockey goalie who plays on with a broken stick takes the minor a skater would. Do not assume the NHL allowance travels to USA Hockey play; if you are a goalie under USA Hockey rules, ask your league.
Hockey Canada is the one book that bars it in terms, and it names the goalie twice. Rule 3.2(c) reads "A goaltender may not continue to play with a broken stick of any kind", and 3.2(d) penalises any violation of the rule under Rule 10.6(a) – Illegal Equipment, a minor. What 3.2(c) does allow is "a player's stick that has been handed to them until the next stoppage of play", at which point a proper goalkeeper's stick must reach them. ⚠️ And here the goalie can be penalised too, but only for picking the replacement up himself, not for being properly handed it. Interpretation 1 to 3.2(c) requires a teammate to carry and hand the stick over: a player who "throws, shoots, kicks, or slides" it takes a minor under 10.5(a) — and "[i]f the goaltender picks up the stick, they will be assessed a Minor penalty under Rule 10.6 (a) – Illegal Equipment." Under the NHL and IIHF books the receiving goalie is expressly not penalised; under Hockey Canada, leave a slid stick where it lies — the same interpretation says "[n]o penalty is to be assessed against the goaltender in this situation if they do not pick up the stick."

When penalties add up

Under Hockey Canada, three stick minors in one game ends your night. Rule 4.8(b)(i) assesses a Game Ejection "when a player is assessed three Minor penalties for 'stick infractions' in the same game", and names them: butt-ending (9.1), cross-checking (9.2), slashing (9.3), spearing (9.4) and high-sticking in junior and senior (9.5). Interpretation 2 to 4.8(b) counts a double minor as one infraction for this purpose. No other book counts stick minors specifically — but do not read that as no accumulation risk elsewhere. USA Hockey Rule 401(b) counts penalties of any kind: a game misconduct on a fourth in one game outside Adult classifications, and an Adult player is "immediately ejected" on a fifth. Rule 411 then adds a season-long ladder over major penalties for butt-ending, cross-checking, high-sticking, slashing, spearing and tripping — a different count from 401(b)'s. ⚠️ A rec player under Hockey Canada taking two stick minors should know the third is not another two minutes — and a rec player under USA Hockey should know the count that ends their night is not stick-specific at all. ⚠️ And outside the Adult classifications it does not end at the night. 401(b)'s fourth penalty is a game misconduct, and Rule 404(b) makes any game misconduct cost the next game too — "A player or Team Official incurring a game misconduct penalty shall also be suspended for the team's next game", and nothing in it exempts a 401(b) game misconduct. So four penalties of any kind in one game, in every classification but Adult, cost a player the following game as well; an Adult player's fifth costs only the rest of this one, because 401(b)'s Adult limb ejects "with no further suspension" in its own words.

What actually gets called at rec level

The order below is coaching craft, not a count of calls. Nobody has counted recreational-league penalties. The one league whose calls have been counted for this document is the NHL — computed from the play-by-play feed rather than published, 400 games of 2024-25 and 2,967 penalties, set out in Body Contact and Battles — and it points the other way on the headline. Seven infraction types were counted there, 71.4% of all calls between them with the rest not broken out, so this ranks those seven one at a time and not the book or any group inside it: tripping leads at 16.6%, hooking is second at 12.1% and roughing, which is not a stick foul, is third at 12.0%. It will not rank stick fouls against the rest, because the leader of the seven will not sort — tripping sits in no book's stick-foul category, and the stick is only one of the six means NHL Rule 57.1 names. The NHL is not your league, so that neither confirms nor refutes the order below; it is the reason the order is offered as an expectation rather than as a measurement. On that footing, the calls you should expect to see, in rough order of frequency:

Hooking, slashing and tripping. The group to expect most — coaching craft, not a count — and the product of being beaten and reaching rather than of bad intent.
Holding and interference. Both are usually late-arriving players grabbing rather than skating.
High-sticking. In leagues where most players are not used to controlling a stick in traffic, this is common, the double minor for blood is a real risk, and visors are not universal in beer-league play. But no book stops at the double minor. Under the IIHF book — which is the British one — and under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada, the same stick can reach a major and a game misconduct, and even the NHL's book makes a high stick that injures deliberately, or tries to, a match penalty (60.4) — so find out which book your league actually runs and what it charges above the double minor. ⚠️ And do not assume a rec league is the lenient one. Under CARHA Hockey Rule 62(b) — the one standalone adult-rec rule book this document cites — a high stick that contacts an opponent above the shoulders starts at a major, accidental or intentional, “whether or not injury results”, with no minor rung above the shoulders. ⚠️ And the major is not the ceiling there either — the Note to 62(b) adds a game misconduct where the contact was intentional, or where an accidental one injures, so only an accidental high stick that hurts nobody leaves you a major alone. CARHA-affiliated leagues only, but it is the book to read before guessing.
Too many men. Bench discipline is worse in rec hockey than anywhere else.
Body checking, wherever your league is a non-check one — which under USA Hockey is a question about which adult classification your league runs in rather than about your age: its Glossary names Adult non-check among the four adult classifications, and 604(a) bars checking in all of them. No rulebook records how many leagues sit there, so ask yours. Officials in a non-check league call contact tightly and inconsistently by NHL standards, because the standard they are applying is not the NHL's.
Roughing and unsportsmanlike conduct after the whistle.

Conversely, the calls you will rarely see in rec hockey: delay of game for puck over the glass (many rinks do not have full glass, and the strict-liability limb does not apply where there is none — though putting the puck out deliberately is still a minor), goalie trapezoid violations (neither North American governing body's book has a trapezoid, and CARHA's has none either — but that is not the same as your goalie being unrestricted behind the net: USA Hockey Rule 614(c) still penalises freezing the puck outside the privileged area, and on three further triggers inside it as well, and Hockey Canada bars freezing it at all once the goaltender has left the crease, with no warning, while CARHA's Rule 58(b) reaches a freeze behind the goal line and its Rule 61(b) any deliberate hold that needlessly stops play, see §7), and diving.

The practical conclusion: in rec hockey, the entire penalty-avoidance problem reduces to stop reaching with your stick, and stop being late. Both are fixed by conditioning and gap control, not by trying harder to be careful.

5. Delayed Penalties

The rulebook's Rule 26 "Delayed Penalties" is about a third penalty to a team that already has two players in the box: the third player's clock does not start until one of the first two expires, and a substitute keeps the team at three skaters (Rule 26.1). A team never plays below three skaters plus a goalie.

What players and commentators mean by "delayed penalty" is different: it is the delayed call under Rule 15.1. That is what this section covers.

How the delayed call works

If a player of the team in control of the puck commits an infraction, the referee blows the whistle immediately.

If a player of the team not in control commits an infraction, the referee raises his arm and lets play continue (signal 29.8). Play is stopped, and the penalty imposed, when the team to be penalised gains control of the puck.

Read that condition carefully: control, not touch. A puck deflecting off a penalised-team player's skate does not end the play. Play continues until they actually have it.

Pulling the goalie

Because play cannot be stopped until the offending team gains control, the non-offending team is guaranteed possession or a stoppage. There is no risk of a goal against from open play. So the goalie skates to the bench and the team plays with a sixth attacker.

This is a tactic, not a rule — nothing in the rulebook requires it, and this document has no count of how often teams actually do it. Where the goalie is comfortable making the trip and the bench is ready for the extra skater, it is the standard play. It is not automatic everywhere: in adult recreational hockey plenty of goalies stay in their net, because the trip to the bench and back is longer than it looks and a sixth attacker is only worth having if somebody comes off for them. So find out what your team does before the referee's arm goes up. It is the bench's call rather than yours, and the failure mode is a goalie setting off while nobody on the ice is expecting it — which is an argument for agreeing the answer in the room, not for deciding it in the moment.

Two rules that constrain it:

The goalie leaving the crease legitimately to be replaced by an extra attacker is not penalised for leaving the crease if an altercation then breaks out (NHL Rule 27.6; IIHF Rule 27.5, same words, different number), and does not wave off a potential icing (Rule 81.3).
In regular-season overtime, pulling the goalie forfeits the guaranteed standings point if you lose while he is off — except when he was pulled for a delayed penalty (Rule 84.2).

What happens if you score

Minor penalty: if the non-offending team scores during the delay, the minor is not imposed at all (Rule 15.2). It is washed out entirely — you get the goal instead of the power play. If two or more minors were coming, the captain chooses which one is washed out.
Double minor: one half is washed out; the player serves the remaining two minutes (Rule 18.2).
Major and match penalties are imposed regardless of whether a goal is scored (Rule 15.2).

If the non-offending team, with their net empty, puts the puck into their own goal, that is a goal for the offending team and the delayed penalty is still assessed. In regular-season overtime this ends the game immediately in the offending team's favour (Rule 84.2).

What to do as a player during a delayed penalty

Look for your bench immediately. The moment you see the referee's arm go up and you are not directly involved in the play, the extra attacker is coming and someone has to come off. If you are the closest player to the bench and not part of the immediate play, you are the one.
Keep the puck. The single rule of a delayed penalty is: do not give the offending team control. That means no risky cross-ice passes through the middle, no blind dumps that they will simply pick up.
Do not force a shot from a bad angle just to "use" the extra man. A shot that misses and rims around is exactly how the offending team gains control and ends your six-on-five for a two-minute five-on-four instead. A missed shot that they collect has cost you the better of the two options.
Regroup if the zone is not open. Take it back to your own end if you have to. You have the puck and they cannot force a whistle without taking it from you.
Six attackers changes the shape, not the principles. Where the extra skater goes is a coaching choice, and this document has no count of what teams do with it — Special Teams says in terms that which shapes teams run has never been measured even on an ordinary power play. What does not change is the rest of this list: keep the puck, no blind plays, no forced shots. Find out where your team puts the sixth attacker before you are the sixth attacker. See also Offensive Zone Play.
If you are the team about to be penalised: touch the puck as fast as possible to end it. Diving on it, deflecting it out, batting it — anything that gets you control. A hand pass in your defending zone is legal (Rule 79.2) and it counts.

A delayed penalty, drawn in your own defending end — so the net in this picture is yours, and it is empty, because your goaltender has already gone to the bench for a sixth attacker. Play runs on until the team to be penalised gains control of the puck under NHL Rule 15.1, and until they do they cannot score. There is one exception: under NHL Rule 78.5(xi) they can only score if your own team shoots the puck into your own net. So the one pass that can beat you is a blind defenceman-to-defenceman pass across the front of your own goal, and it is deliberately not drawn, because an arrow across your own goal mouth reads as an instruction rather than as a warning. The single route drawn is that same pass made the safe way, out and around behind your own net. Only the opponent nearest the puck is drawn. And check before the game rather than in it: not every league allows or practises pulling the goalie on a delayed call, and some officials stop play early. How many is a question about leagues rather than about rulebooks, and no count of it is given here.

Diagram from game management · What the shapes and fills mean

USA Hockey note: if a team ices the puck during a delayed penalty against their opponents, the ensuing faceoff is at a neutral-zone spot nearest the icing team's defending zone, not in their end (Rule 624(a) note). The NHL rulebook contains no equivalent provision, largely because in the NHL play would already be whistled the moment the offending team gained control.

6. Power Play and Penalty Kill Basics

This section covers only what the rules determine. The tactics — formations, entries, seam passes, what to do when the puck goes to the corner — live in Special Teams.

The strengths you will actually see

5-on-4 — one minor. The standard power play.
5-on-3 — two overlapping minors. Lasts only as long as both are on the clock.
4-on-4 — one minor to each team at the same stoppage, with nothing else on the clock (Rule 19.1). Not a power play at all; both teams have a man off. Enormous open ice. 🇬🇧 This trigger is NHL-only. IIHF Rule 19.1 requires immediate substitution and its casebook says the teams play five a side. Britain reaches 4-on-4 by other routes — a minor against a major at the same stoppage — just not by coincidental minors.
4-on-3 — a minor to each team while one team is already down one, or a penalty during 3-on-3 overtime (Rule 84.3).
3-on-3 — regular-season overtime, or the residue of overlapping penalties in overtime.

Teams never go below three skaters (Rules 26.1, 84.3). A third penalty to an already two-men-down team is queued behind the others.

When a penalty ends early

A minor or bench minor penalty terminates immediately when the opposing team scores — but only if both conditions hold (Rule 16.2):

The team scored against is shorthanded, and
The team scored against is serving a minor on the clock.

The penalty that ends is the one with the least time remaining. Two important exceptions:

Majors do not end on a goal (Rule 20.2). Five minutes is five minutes.
No penalty expires when a goal is scored on a penalty shot (Rules 16.2, 24.6).

Coincidental minors do not make either team shorthanded, so they do not expire on a goal either.

Shorthanded teams may ice the puck — with two exceptions

A team below the numerical strength of its opponent may shoot the puck the length of the ice with no icing called (Rule 81.6). This is the structural core of penalty killing. Every kill is built on the fact that clearing the puck costs you nothing but the time it takes them to bring it back.

It is not unconditional, and it is easy to state bare when it should not be. There are two exceptions, and the wording of both is quoted in full below.

Exception 1 — the NHL's empty penalty bench (Rule 81.6). Quoted in full: "When a team is 'short-handed' by reason of a major penalty, and they have neglected to ensure there is a player on the penalty bench to exit upon the expiry of the penalty, they will continue to play short-handed but are not permitted to ice the puck. Icing will be called. They may substitute for this penalized player at the next stoppage of play." Read "to exit upon the expiry of the penalty" as the whole of the trigger, because an empty penalty bench during the major is not the offence — Rule 20.3 expressly permits it. That rule is written for the case where the penalised player is not there to come out himself: "When a player has been assessed a major penalty and has been removed from the game or is injured, the offending team does not have to place a substitute player on the penalty bench immediately, but must do so at a stoppage of play prior to the expiration of the major penalty." There are two gates in that sentence and they work in opposite directions, so do not read the first as the whole story. The first one opens the delay, and it is narrow: it is available only where the penalised player is not there to come out himself. Reading the two rules together, the carve-out can therefore only bite on a major whose player is ejected or injured and somebody else has to take his seat; on an ordinary major he is sitting there himself, which means there is a player on the penalty bench to exit, and 81.6's third paragraph has no facts to attach to. That inference is the two rules read side by side rather than a sentence either of them prints. The second gate closes the delay again, and it is the sentence immediately after the permission: "If the player has been assessed minor penalties in addition to the major penalty that must also be served on the penalty time clock, the offending team must place a substitute on the penalty bench immediately." ⚠️ So "the box may sit empty until the expiry" is not a rule of thumb to carry onto a bench — with minors on the clock alongside the major it is a breach from the first whistle.

Where the delay is available, nothing in the carve-out touches a clear inside the five minutes — whether you are exempt at all is still the head count set out below — and what you owe is a substitute in the box by the time it runs out — 20.3 names a stoppage and no other way in, so take the first one you get.

What the book does not say is what icing does in the meantime, and nothing else in it fills the gap. All four of the NHL's failure sentences, spread across three rules, test the penalty bench at the expiry — Rule 68.2 wants the substitute "before the major penalty expires", and both of 20.3's read the same way — "[f]ailure to place a player on the penalty bench prior to the expiration of the major penalty", and "if the team fails to place a player on the penalty bench to return to the ice at the end of the major penalty" — and so does 81.6's, which wants somebody there "to exit upon the expiry of the penalty". And a fourth rule sets the same deadline without pricing it — Rule 22.3, which has a team whose player took a major and a misconduct together "place a substitute player on the penalty bench before the major penalty expires", and attaches no sanction. None of the four failure sentences attaches any consequence at all to the timing of the substitute inside the major. So on the words, a team that owed one immediately and has not produced one by minute four is in breach of 20.3 and still has its icing exemption until the major runs out — but the book does not address the case, and that is a reading of three rules side by side rather than a ruling by any of them. Under the NHL, put the substitute in at the first stoppage and the question never comes up — but see the book-by-book paragraph below before carrying that habit into another league.

Three things follow if the box is empty when the major expires, and the first of them is a penalty. ⚠️ Rule 68.2 makes the failure itself an illegal substitution: the penalised team "shall place a substitute player on the penalty bench before the major penalty expires", and "[a]ny violation of this provision shall be treated as an illegal substitution under this rule calling for a bench minor penalty." That is two minutes, before anything happens to your clear. Then the clear: you keep playing a skater short until the next stoppage — that is the whole of the window, and it opens at the expiry, not at the drop of the puck — and for that stretch you cannot ice it. 20.3 gives the mechanism, and it is the one place where being a skater down is not by itself enough — read it beside the head count set out below. The ice is short a skater, but "they are no longer short-handed by reason of a penalty": the penalty that produced the count has run out, and what is left is a team a player light by its own omission. The two rules word that state differently and the book does not reconcile them — 20.3 calls it "one player short (but not officially considered short-handed)" and 81.6 says the team "will continue to play short-handed" — but nothing turns on it: a skater down, and no exemption, on either wording. And ⚠️ you cannot fix it over the boards: "Any replacement player who enters the game other than from the penalty bench shall constitute an illegal substitution under Rule 68 – Illegal Substitution calling for a bench minor penalty." This is bench administration rather than a playing decision, but the bill lands on the five players on the ice.

Exception 2 — USA Hockey restricts the exemption by classification, and if USA Hockey's book is the one your league runs, this is the one that matters. The shorthanded nullification in Rule 624(b)(1) is prefixed with a classification limit: "(For all Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult classifications only) The offending team is short-handed (below the on-ice numerical strength of their opponent) when the puck is shot." Below those levels the nullification simply is not available, so a shorthanded team cannot ice the puck at all — an attempted length-of-the-ice clear on the kill comes straight back for a defensive-zone draw. If you play or coach youth hockey under USA Hockey rules, the single biggest structural advantage the NHL penalty kill has does not exist for you, and a kill built on clearing the length of the ice will simply feed the power play repeated defensive-zone faceoffs. (USA Hockey does, however, allow a line change after an icing — see above — so the cost is not identical.)

IIHF gives the same exemption, and its Rule 81.6 has only two paragraphs where the NHL's has three — so the major-penalty carve-out above is not in your book, and nothing withdraws the exemption from a British team for an empty penalty bench. That silence has a reason rather than being a gap, and the reason is a deadline rather than an amnesty. Its own Rule 20.3 takes the NHL's opening facts — a major where the player "has been removed from the game or is injured" — and writes the opposite instruction: the team "must place a substitute in the penalty box immediately", word for word in the 2025/26 Version 1.1 and 2026/27 editions alike. There is no permitted empty box to neglect, so there is no missed deadline for a third paragraph of the icing rule to key on. What the IIHF has instead is a bench minor, at Rule 68.2 — and so does the NHL, at its own Rule 68.2, in the same sentence. ⚠️ Do not take "the carve-out is not in my book" as good news, and do not take it as a difference in how hard the two books hit: both charge two minutes for an empty box, and only the NHL adds the icing on top. The book-by-book paragraphs below set it out. Nor is the exemption itself unconditional, because IIHF Rule 81.6's second paragraph is the timing test — the NHL's sentences but for its capitalised Player and the quotation marks it puts round "icing", and identical in its own 2025/26 Version 1.1 and 2026/27 editions.

The other books do not line up behind either position, so do not compress them into one — and the compression easiest to reach for is the wrong one. Only one of the five forecloses the empty box, and what the failure costs turns on which fact pattern emptied it, not on the book alone. Under the NHL and the IIHF an empty box is a bench minor on both patterns (68.2) — ⚠️ but their deadlines are not the same, and that is what decides whether the two minutes land while you are still killing. Under the IIHF the substitute is due "immediately", so the breach is complete with the major still running and the bench minor can go on top of it: on a kill, a 5-on-3. Under the NHL the deadline inside 68.2 — the rule carrying the bench minor — is the expiry itself, so its book does not settle whether the two ever overlap. Do not carry the 5-on-3 across to the NHL. ⚠️ USA Hockey prices one of the two fact patterns and not the other. Where the penalised player is injured, Rule 206(d) carries the seating duty and the bench minor in the same rule. Where a major plus game misconduct empties the box and nobody is hurt, Rule 403(d) puts the duty on Youth, High School and Girls' teams and writes no sanction at all. Hockey Canada never gets there and CARHA does not say. Deadline and price both divide them, so settle each separately — and the NHL is the only one that then adds the loss of the clear on top of the two minutes. Find your own row:

Book	When the substitute is due	What failing to seat one costs
NHL	A stoppage before the major expires (20.3) — immediately if minors are on the clock beside it	A bench minor (68.2), and a skater short to the next stoppage with no icing (81.6, 20.3)
IIHF	Immediately (20.3, 8.1, 68.2)	A bench minor (68.2, 8.1), and nothing else — the icing exemption is untouched
USA Hockey — Youth, High School, Girls'	Immediately — 403(d); 405(a) for a match; 206(d) if the penalised player is injured	Depends which pattern. Injured player: a bench minor (206(d)). Major plus game misconduct, nobody hurt: 403(d) writes none — seat somebody anyway
USA Hockey — Adult	Not at all on a major plus game misconduct or a match (403(d), 405(a)) — 206(d) is not lifted anywhere else	Nothing on those two. Coming over the boards at the expiry is what the rule provides for (Casebook Rule 204, Situation 11)
Hockey Canada	The coach names a server — and if he refuses, the referee names one — but neither 4.4(a) nor 4.1(b) writes a timing word	Cannot arise. The seat is filled either way, which is why no sanction is written
CARHA	A substitute is required, but Rule 30(a) names no moment	Rule 30(a) writes none, and no separate CARHA casebook is held here. Treat this one as unsettled

Hockey Canada is the one that forecloses it, and it takes two rules to do so. Rule 4.4(a) assesses a game misconduct with every major and orders the player "to the dressing room for the remainder of the game", then has "[t]he Coach of the penalized team, through the Captain… designate any player on the ice at the time of the infraction to serve the penalty" — a named server, not an option. The half that does the work is in a different rule, and it catches a coach who will not name anybody. Rule 4.1(b): "If the Coach refuses to name a player, the Referee will name any player of the offending team to serve the penalty." The seat is filled with or without the bench's co-operation, and that is why Hockey Canada writes no sanction for an empty one. What neither 4.4(a) nor 4.1(b) writes is a moment — and that is those two rules, not the book, which uses the word freely elsewhere: Rule 4.7(b) has a team whose player took a minor and a misconduct together "immediately place a substitute player on the bench to serve the Minor penalty", and Interpretation 12 to Rule 10.6(a) has a substitute "replace the penalized player on the Penalty Bench immediately" where the penalised player has no certified helmet to sit in. Whether either reaches a major is not settled here.

The NHL and the IIHF price this in the same sentence, at the same rule number — and it is easy to miss, because each book's icing rule points only at its own and the two icing rules are not the same length. Both write a Rule 68.2 opening on the two fact patterns that produce an empty box — a major taken with a misconduct or game misconduct, or an injured player who cannot serve his own major — and both close with the identical sentence: "Any violation of this provision shall be treated as an illegal substitution under this rule calling for a bench minor penalty." Word for word: that sentence was searched for in the flattened text of the NHL book and of both IIHF editions, and is present unchanged in all three. ⚠️ "This provision" holds two duties, so the bench minor is not only for coming over the boards — it covers the seating duty as well, and the NHL's own index entry "failure to put substitute in for major penalty" points at 68.2. (That entry also points at Rule 20.2, which is the short-handed rule and has nothing to do with substitution, so the index is corroboration and not authority; 68.2's own words are.)

Where the two books part is the deadline, and it is inside 68.2 itself. The NHL has the team place its substitute "on the penalty bench before the major penalty expires"; the IIHF has it place one "in the penalty box immediately" — the same sentence otherwise, bar the NHL's penalty bench for the IIHF's penalty box. The NHL states its own deadline twice and not identically: 68.2 says only "before the major penalty expires", where 20.3 requires it "at a stoppage of play prior to the expiration of the major penalty" — a stoppage and no other way in. ⚠️ The book does not reconcile them, so work to 20.3's, which is the narrower. IIHF Rule 8.1 writes the injured half a third time and ends "For violation of this rule, a bench minor penalty shall be imposed." The IIHF's own Situation Handbook reaches the same result at Situation 68.5 — though it does not apply 8.1 to get there, citing "Rule 68.2, 68.5 and Rule 78.5(IV)" — where a player whose coincidental major ran out while he was in the dressing room is put back on the fly and his team scores: "Disallow goal and assess a bench minor penalty. Player must have waited until a stoppage of play before returning."

CARHA is the one to leave open. Rule 30(a) is flat that the penalised team "shall place a substitute player on the Penalty Bench to serve five minutes actual playing time" — but it names no moment, attaches no sanction, and does not use the phrase that would trigger the book's own backstop. Rule 27(d) puts the referee in the coach's chair only "[w]here the rules state that the Manager or Coach shall designate a player to serve a penalty", and 30(a) does not say that; the book uses that formula at Rule 29(b), for bench minors. What is silent is Rule 30(a), not the book — CARHA writes an immediate seating duty into neighbouring rules, at Rule 31(a)'s second paragraph ("When a player is assessed a Minor and a Misconduct penalty or a Major and a Misconduct penalty at the same time, the penalized team shall immediately place a substitute player on the penalty bench to serve the Minor or Major penalty") and at Rule 32(a), where a third penalty in a game rules the player off and "[i]t shall be necessary to place a substitute on the penalty bench immediately to serve the third penalty." Those two do not stand or fall together. Rule 31(a) does not reach 30(a)'s facts, because 30(a)'s major carries a Game Misconduct, which CARHA writes as a different penalty from the Misconduct of Rule 31 — the two live in separate rules. ⚠️ But Rule 32(a) reaches part of them, and it says so in its own Note. Note 1 to 32(a) reads "[a]ny combination of minor, bench minor, or major penalties shall apply to the personal total of any individual in the game" — so when the major is that player's third penalty of the game, 32(a) applies and the substitute must be seated immediately. What no sentence in the book settles is the general case: a major that is the player's first or second penalty. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume is held here, and the book's own Case Situations section prints nothing under Rule 30. So do not read CARHA as foreclosing anything, and do not read Rule 30(a)'s silence as the book's: read 30(a) as silent on the moment, and seat somebody anyway.

USA Hockey does not merely differ, it inverts — and it splits twice: by classification at Rule 403(d), and by fact pattern between 403(d) and 206(d). For Youth, High School and Girls' the team "shall immediately place an additional or substitute player on the penalty bench and such player may not be changed." 403(d) writes no sanction of its own — and that is the whole of what is unpriced here, because the book's other fact pattern is priced. Rule 206(d) opens on a "penalized player [who] has been injured", has the team "place a substitute on the penalty bench immediately", bars any replacement entering "except from the penalty bench, unless otherwise specified under Rule 403(d) or 405(a)", and ends "[f]or a violation of this rule a bench minor penalty for illegal substitution shall be imposed." ⚠️ "This rule" is 206(d) and the seating duty is inside it, so a team that leaves the box empty behind an injured penalised player concedes a bench minor in this book too. Rule 204(c) then requires the man in the box to leave "by way of the ice" before anyone replaces him, and the Casebook at Rule 204, Situation 10 — headed "(For all Youth Levels of Play)" — answers a team that puts a skater on while he is still sitting there: "[f]or a violation of this rule, a bench minor penalty must be assessed to the offending team." The book's own Summary of Penalties files both under Bench Minor Penalty, naming 204(c) "Illegal entry from penalty bench" and 206(d) "Injured/penalized player returns prematurely" — but that list is a finding aid and not the scope of the rules it names. Its 206(d) entry describes the third paragraph of a rule whose bench minor is written for the whole of it, and the list omits Rule 404(a) altogether, which writes "[f]or violation of this rule a bench minor penalty for illegal substitution shall be imposed" against a team that fails to seat the extra player for a minor plus a misconduct. So a Youth, High School or Girls' team that simply never seats anybody after a major plus game misconduct, nobody having been injured, is in breach of 403(d), and no rule read here prices that breach. The Casebook puts the question directly, at Rule 403, Situation 3 — may the team "wait until the major penalty is near expiration before placing the additional player on the penalty bench?" — and answers "No (Youth, Girls' and High School). Rule Reference 403(d)." without naming a penalty. Read it as a duty whose sanction the book leaves unstated rather than as a free one — ⚠️ and seat somebody, because the Casebook permits coming over the boards at the expiry instead only "(For Adults Only)", at Rule 204, Situation 11. Rule 405(a) writes the identical split for match penalties, also five minutes shorthanded, so do not read 403(d) as the whole of it. For Adult classifications it is the opposite of the NHL: the team "shall not be required to place an additional or substitute player on the penalty bench for the purpose of serving short-handed penalty time", and "[w]hen the major penalty expires, the penalized team may regain even-strength by adding a player from the team bench" — which the Casebook confirms at Rule 204, Situation 11, "(For Adults Only)", answering "Yes" to sending that player on during play. ⚠️ That same act — coming over the boards at the expiry instead of out of the box — is one of the two things the NHL's Rule 68.2 calls an illegal substitution and prices at a bench minor, the other being the failure to seat anybody in the first place. So under USA Hockey adult rules an empty penalty bench through a major plus game misconduct, or through a match penalty, is the expected state rather than an error, and there is nothing to seat anybody for. ⚠️ Do not widen that relief past the two penalties it names. 403(d) and 405(a) are the only rules 206(d) stands aside for, so an adult player injured on a plain major — no game misconduct, no match — is still inside 206(d), and a substitute is still due in the box immediately. That is the two rules read side by side rather than a sentence either of them prints.

One case empties the box legitimately, and it is the only genuinely common ground these five books have here: coincidental majors carrying game misconducts. Substitutes go straight onto the ice, nobody is owed in the box, and neither team is shorthanded — so the icing question never arises at all. NHL 19.2: "if one or both players have received a game misconduct in addition to their major penalties, no substitutes are required to take their places on the penalty benches." IIHF 19.2 writes the same sentence in its own terms — "in the penalty boxes" where the NHL writes "on the penalty benches", and its capitalised Players. Hockey Canada's Note 1 to Rule 4.5(c): "If the Major or Match penalty is coincidental, no substitute is required to serve" — with 4.5(a), "[n]either team will be shorthanded as the result of coincidental penalties." USA Hockey's 403(c) makes the immediate substitution, and both halves of 403(d), and 405(a) as well, open with the same carve-out: "unless immediate substitution is permitted under the coincidental major penalty Rule 403(c)". CARHA 30(b) provides that on coincident majors "immediate substitutions shall be made for those penalties", though it does not say in terms, as the other four do, that nobody is then owed in the box. ⚠️ The game misconducts are the condition, so check that they went with the majors — without one the penalised players serve their own time in the box, and it is not empty at all.

Read the whole of this on two axes rather than one, because a single "strict or lenient" ranking will not hold. On the deadline the NHL is the later book: it lets the box sit empty until a stoppage before the expiry, where the IIHF, Hockey Canada and USA Hockey's youth classifications want somebody seated at once — and USA Hockey's adult half is later still, asking for no substitute at all. On the price the NHL is the heavier book: its bench minor is the IIHF's, in the same words, and it then adds the loss of the clear that no other book here writes. So neither "the NHL is the strict book" nor "the NHL is the lenient one" is true, and a reader who carries either across will get one of the two halves wrong. Read the differences as different shapes of rule, not as milder and stricter versions of one, and do not carry "get somebody in the box early" across as though it were general good practice: it is the requirement under the IIHF, under Hockey Canada and under USA Hockey's youth, high-school and girls' classifications; CARHA requires a substitute too but names no moment for one; it is what the NHL's deadline amounts to; and it is asked of a USA Hockey adult team not at all. The correct bench routine on a major depends on which book you are under, and this is the section to settle it in. (Read for the substitution rules and their sanctions on 14 September 2026 — Hockey Canada 4.1(b), 4.4, 4.5; CARHA 27(d), 29(b), 30; USA Hockey 204(c), 206(d), 403, 405(a) with its Casebook at Rule 204 Situations 10 and 11 and Rule 403 Situation 3; IIHF 8.1, 19.2, 20.3, 68.1, 68.2 with Situation Handbook 68.5; NHL 19.2, 20.3, 68 — and for USA Hockey Rule 624, read end to end the same day, which mentions neither a penalty bench nor a substitute anywhere in the icing rule. What each book does about icing otherwise is the two exceptions above.)

That timing test is not an exception, and it is not the definition of being shorthanded either. The definition is a head count. You are exempt whenever you are below the opponent's on-ice numerical strength — Exception 1 above being the single case where that is not the end of it, because there the penalty itself has expired and 20.3 says in terms that the team is "no longer short-handed by reason of a penalty" — and every book here writes the test as a count and not a clock: NHL Rule 81.6 itself ("by a player of a side below the numerical strength of the opposing team, play shall continue"), NHL and IIHF Rule 16.2 ("below the numerical strength of its opponent on the ice"), USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(1) ("below the on-ice numerical strength of their opponent"), Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(b) and its glossary ("where a team is below the numerical strength of their opponent"), and — stated more cleanly than any of them — CARHA Rule 65(d): "'Icing the puck' shall not be called if a team is below the numerical strength of the opposing team at the instant the puck is shot."

What the expiry clause adds is who counts in that head count, and it is one player it is talking about: the one whose own penalty has just run out. He counts as back on the ice from the moment his time is up, even while he is still sitting there — NHL and IIHF Rule 81.6 ("The action of the penalized player remaining in the penalty box will not alter the ruling", definite and singular in both books), USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(1) ("regardless as to the position of the penalized player"), Hockey Canada's Note 1 to Rule 6.7(b) ("A team will no longer be considered shorthanded once the penalty time expires, irrespective of whether or not the penalized player has left the Penalty Bench") and CARHA's Note 2 to Rule 65(a) ("A team shall not be considered below the numerical strength of its opponent by reason of a penalized player remaining in the penalty box after their penalty has expired"). It does not count a teammate who is still serving a live penalty, and reading it that way inverts the rule.

So an expiry ends your exemption only if it puts you level — and on a 5-on-3 it does not. When the first of the two penalties runs out you are 4-on-5: still below their strength, so still exempt wherever you had the exemption to begin with — all five books take the count that way. ⚠️ Under USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(1) you have it only from Youth 15-Only, Girls 16U, High School and Adult up. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 6.7(b) says it plainest — once the penalty time expires the player "is considered to have completed their penalty and is on the ice, for the purpose of equal numbers (or not)", and the "(or not)" is this case. For a British reader the IIHF book settles it in one sentence of its own glossary: short-handed means "below the 'numerical strength' of its opponents on the ice due to one or more penalties that they are serving."

The same test runs your way too, and that half is worth more to a penalty killer than the warning is: a clear released before the penalty expires is not icing even if the penalty runs out while the puck is still travelling. The NHL's 81.6 says so in terms — "[s]hould the puck be released from the stick of the player shooting the puck down the ice prior to the penalty expiring, the icing infraction shall not apply", and the IIHF's is the same sentence with its capitalised Player and quotation marks round "icing" — USA Hockey 624(b)(1) writes "if the puck was shot prior to the penalty time expiration … no icing shall be called", and Hockey Canada and CARHA reach the same result by testing numerical strength "at the instant the puck is shot" (Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(b) with its Interpretation 2, which adds that "[i]f the team returns to full strength following the shot by one of its players, NO ICING can be called"; CARHA Rule 65(d)). ⚠️ So where your classification has the exemption at all, get the clear away before the clock runs out on a kill that is about to expire — every book that grants it reads the release and not the arrival, and under USA Hockey that is Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult, below which there is no exemption to time (Rule 624(b)(1)). And once it has run out, the question is never who is still sitting in the box, it is whether you are still a skater short.

Practical consequences

On the kill, the clear is the whole game. You are not trying to make a play; you are trying to make them skate 200 feet again. Get it out, get it down, change.
On the power play, the clock is your opponent as much as the killers are. Two minutes is roughly two possessions if you have to re-enter the zone each time. A failed entry is far more costly than a failed shot.
When your penalty is about to expire and you are killing, the player in the box is a breakaway waiting to happen. Somebody has to call it out. See On-Ice Communication.
4-on-4 is not a power play and should not be played like one. Both teams have space; both teams are equally exposed to a turnover.

7. Goaltender-Specific Rules

For the position itself, see Goaltender. This section is the rules layer.

The crease

The goal crease is the light-blue area in front of the net — 8 feet wide at the goal line, 6 feet deep at its deepest point — and it is a volume, not an area: it extends vertically four feet, to the height of the top of the goal frame (NHL Rule 1.7). Those figures come from Rink Map, which covers the rink's geometry and gives the full Rule 1.7 construction, the goaltender's reference marks and the IIHF equivalents.

The goal crease — the blue paint — shaded here: 8 ft wide at the goal line, 6 ft deep, extending 4 ft up as a volume, not a floor. The red boundary line itself counts as crease in the rule text or glossary of the IIHF, USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA; the NHL and the PWHL leave it unsaid. The books’ reference tables answer the other way, the IIHF’s own among them — a contradiction inside one book that nothing here resolves. So keep your skates off the red line, not merely out of the blue paint. No shading can draw an edge that fine.

Diagram from rink map · What the shapes and fills mean

Goaltender interference

The governing principle (Rule 69.1) is stated explicitly and is not what most players think it is:

Goals are disallowed only if (1) an attacking player, by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalie's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with the goalie, inside or outside the crease.

That "only if" is a ceiling and not a direction — read it before carrying clause (1) anywhere. It says one of those two has to be true for a goal to come off the board; it does not say a goal comes off whenever positioning impairs the goalie. The sentence in 69.1 that actually disallows a goal is keyed to the crease — an attacking player who "enters the goal crease" and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend it. Screening is legal outside the crease, below, sets that out with 69.3 and 69.4 — and with the crease line, where what is unsettled is narrower than it sounds. Every book that settles the question in its rule text or glossary puts the line inside the crease. What nobody has settled is that the IIHF's own book then answers the same play both ways: Rule 1.7 puts the marked line inside the crease, while its Situation 5E allows the goal to a screen planted on it. Rink Map sets that clash out in full.

Inside the crease (Rule 69.3): if an attacking player initiates contact with the goalie — incidental or otherwise — and a goal is scored, the goal is disallowed. This is the strict zone. Rule 69.3 then has two paragraphs about contact the goalkeeper initiates, and they are different paragraphs — the first of them costs you the goal even if you do everything right. If a goalkeeper, "in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease", initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the crease and that "results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal", a goal scored on the play is disallowed. Those are the NHL's words; the IIHF writes the same paragraph in its own house style. Giving ground does not save that goal, and both books say so in a worked case. Each puts the fact pattern of an attacking player who "vacates the position immediately at the time a goal is scored" and answers "Goal is disallowed", with the reason in the description column: "Even though the attacking player vacates his position immediately, the contact impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal" (NHL Reference Table 14, Situation 6C, and the IIHF the same situation at its 2025/26 Appendix IV, Table 16; the IIHF Situation Handbook puts the same play at Situation 69.6 and answers the same way). Whether a penalty goes with that one is stated nowhere. Unlike 6D, 6C's result column says nothing about a penalty in either direction — so do not read "no penalty" out of its silence. ⚠️ None of that makes giving ground optional — 69.3 goes on to require it, and standing your ground pays nothing on either reading.

The next paragraph of 69.3 is the one that names a duty of yours, and it is the paragraph the books then contradict. If, after any contact by a goalkeeper attempting to establish position, the attacker does not immediately give ground, and a goal is scored, it is disallowed and the attacker is penalised for goaltender interference — a minor under the NHL, whose 69.3 writes "a minor penalty", but the IIHF's 69.3 writes "the appropriate penalty" and caps nothing, so under the British reader's book the severity of that clause is left open. ⚠️ Do not read that as the NHL capping Rule 69 at a minor, because it does not. The severity range is common to both books — the parenthetical "(minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)" appears word for word at 69.2 in the NHL's book and the IIHF's alike, so Rule 69 as a whole reaches a major in each of them. And 69.2 is not the clause that governs this play, so do not lean on it here. Its own opening confines it to cases in which an attacking player initiates "intentional or deliberate" contact with the goalie — and in the give-ground case it is the goaltender who initiated the contact. What separates the two books on this clause is 69.3's own wording and nothing else: the NHL writes a ceiling into it and the IIHF does not. An IIHF major is five minutes with no substitute (Rule 20.1). No automatic game misconduct attaches to it: Rule 69 is on none of the IIHF's major-penalty reference tables — not Table 5, not Table 6, not Table 7, and not the single Table 5 the 2026/27 edition merges those three into — and Rule 20.4 attaches the automatic ejection only to a second major, a second misconduct in the same game, or a major for one of the infractions those tables list. ⚠️ Do not take what follows as a reassurance. The rule text and the appendix pull apart, and in Britain neither of them writes you a ceiling — so do not plan on two minutes. Both books' appendix tables then answer this play more leniently than the NHL's rule text does, and more precisely than the IIHF's. The NHL sets it out in Reference Table 14 under "Crowding the Goalkeeper" at D, and the IIHF at its 2025/26 Appendix IV, Table 16, Situation 6D — goalkeeper establishing position, attacker refuses to give ground, goal scored — and both answer "Goal is disallowed. A minor penalty is not assessed (loss of goal only)." And it is the NHL's book, not the British reader's, that contradicts itself outright here. NHL 69.3 leaves the referee nothing — "In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference" — against a table that answers "A minor penalty is not assessed". The IIHF's 69.3 writes "the appropriate penalty" in that same slot, and no penalty at all is one of the things that phrase can carry, so the IIHF book accommodates its own table where the NHL's cannot. Where the tables do assess something is the same contact with no goal scored, at B in each — and read B's description column, not only its result: both books make it conditional in identical words, "A possible penalty depends on the Referee's judgment as to the degree of contact and degree of resistance with the attacking player and whether the goalkeeper was truly trying to establish a position." The NHL's result column then answers "Minor penalty" and adds "In this example it is a minor penalty" — an illustration, not a floor — while the IIHF's says only that the referee "must assess the appropriate penalty to the attacking Player." The IIHF Situation Handbook does not settle it either. It carries six worked situations under Rule 69 — where Rule 43 gets "No situation." — and two of them pair a disallowed goal with nothing for the attacker in terms: 69.1 ("The goal shall be disallowed, and no additional penalty assessed") and 69.2, which puts this exact give-ground play and answers "No goal – no penalty." A third, 69.6 — the vacate-immediately case set out above — names no penalty either, though not in as many words. That corroborates the tables, and it still cannot break the tie: the handbook's own Foreword ranks it below the book — "in case of any contradictions, the valid IIHF Rulebook is always the basis" — and that Table 16 is Appendix IV of that Rulebook, so the NHL's conflict is internal to its own rulebook and nothing outside it ranks one side above the other. A player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when his body, or a substantial part of it, is in the crease for more than an instantaneous period.

Outside the crease (Rule 69.4): the rule asks two questions and answers them from different clauses, so keep them apart. The goal question is its first paragraph, and there incidental contact is the whole of the test: "If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." ⚠️ The penalty question is the next paragraph, and there the permission is conditional — the condition is the half that gets dropped. The restriction comes first: "A goalkeeper is not 'fair game' just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper." Then the permission, and its opening clause is the operative one: "However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact." So the permission is not "he was outside the crease". It is "he was outside the crease and playing the puck, and you made a reasonable effort to avoid him." A goaltender who has come out to challenge, or who is set up outside the paint with the puck somewhere else, is not inside that clause at all — and a forechecker who bumps him there has the books' own answer, that a penalty "should be assessed in every case" of unnecessary contact. How the restriction and the permission interact where the contact was genuinely incidental but the goalkeeper was not playing the puck is stated in neither book, and is not resolved here. 🇬🇧 The IIHF writes the same condition at the same number, in the 2025/26 v1.1 and 2026/27 editions alike: "'incidental contact' will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside their goal crease provided the attacking Player has made a 'reasonable effort' to avoid such unnecessary contact." USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA write no such permission, so do not carry it into their games: USA Hockey's 607(d) Note 1 sends "any accidental or unavoidable contact that occurs with the goalkeeper" to the Interference rule, and its Casebook's narrower permission is set out below.

The other three books reach the same play in their own words, and none of them writes an "outside the crease" permission you can lean on — USA Hockey qualifies it, Hockey Canada writes none at all, and CARHA gives you no privileged area to be outside of. USA Hockey files it under charging. Rule 607(c) assesses "A minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty" to a player "who body checks or charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease or privileged area", and 607(b) makes it a major plus a game misconduct, with no choice, for any charge that "recklessly endangers an opponent". The privileged area is one 607(d) Note 2 defines by "connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards", which its Casebook at Rule 607, Situation 6 confirms "extends to the closer end boards", so it takes in the ice behind the net and not the corners. Rule 607(d) then protects the goalkeeper outside it: "A goalkeeper is NOT 'fair game' because they are outside the privileged area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper." And USA Hockey's Casebook keys this to the puck exactly as the NHL and the IIHF do, in words no search for their phrasing would ever find. Rule 607, Situation 5: "Although a goalkeeper can be legally checked when outside the privileged area, they are not considered to be 'fair game.'" ⚠️ Read that first clause against Rule 604 before you lean on it, because across whole classifications of USA Hockey play there is no legal body check to deliver at all: 604(a) bars body checking at 12 & under and below, in all Girls'/Women's classifications and in all non-check Adult classifications, and 604(b) makes any game one of those teams plays a no-check game whatever the other team's classification says — so it is a question about the fixture as well as about your age group. Then "When the goalkeeper has possession of the puck, the attacking player is permitted to physically engage with the goalkeeper in an effort to gain possession of the puck. However, any check delivered with the intent to intimidate or punish the goalkeeper should be penalized as charging.", and "When the goalkeeper is no longer in control of the puck, any avoidable contact (meaning the attacking player has sufficient time to avoid the contact) must also be penalized under this rule." Hockey Canada writes no possession condition and no permission at all. Rule 8.5 concedes only that "While incidental contact with the goaltender may occur, attacking players must make an effort to avoid contact in all circumstances", hangs the penalty on that effort — "The onus is always on the attacking player and players who do not make an effort to avoid the goaltender must be penalized" — and gives the "not fair game" protection an explicit reach "anywhere on the ice." ⚠️ CARHA writes no permission to engage a goalkeeper who has the puck, and no privileged area to be outside of. Its Rule 66(b) imposes a minor on "any attacking player, who makes deliberate contact with a goalkeeper whether in or out of the goal crease", with a major available "[a]t the discretion of the Referee" — and in CARHA that major also ejects you, because Rule 30(a) attaches a game misconduct to every major but an accidental high stick that injures nobody — and its charging rule, whose 52(b) makes a charge on a goalkeeper in the crease, or any charge that injures wherever it happens, a mandatory major and game misconduct, carries the same protection USA Hockey and Hockey Canada write, at the Rule 52(b) Note: "A goalkeeper is NOT 'fair game' just because they are outside the goal crease area." ⚠️ What survives every book here is narrower than "outside the crease is fine": a goaltender who is not dealing with the puck is not to be contacted — and the duty does not lift when he is, under Hockey Canada because the effort to avoid him is owed in all circumstances, and under CARHA because deliberate contact is at least a minor wherever he is standing.

Standing in the way of a goalie getting back to his crease (Rule 69.4 as well, its returning-goalkeeper paragraph). This is the half of Rule 69 that never gets quoted, and it is the one that catches a net-front forward who has been told only that an empty crease is a free crease. The NHL: "When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference." 🇬🇧 The IIHF writes the same paragraph at the same number, in its own house style — "prevented from returning to their goal crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking Player, such Player may be penalized for 'Goalkeeper interference'" — identical in the 2025/26 v1.0 and v1.1 books and the 2026/27 book, so a British reader has it too. It runs both ways in each book, and each writes it in its own words: the next sentence penalises the goalkeeper who, in the NHL's words, by his actions outside his crease "deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent" — and in the IIHF's, "if by their actions outside of their goal crease they deliberately interfere with an attacking Player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent."

Do not blend that with USA Hockey's answer to the same play, because the two thresholds point in opposite directions. USA Hockey's lives in its Casebook, at Rule 625, Situation 9, and it is mandatory and broad: where the goalkeeper "is attempting to return to the goal crease and there is any interference by the attacking player who prevents the goalkeeper from making a play, then the goal must be disallowed and an interference penalty shall be assessed." Any interference, no goal, penalty assessed. Read that alongside the authority its own Casebook cites for it, though, because it is a contact clause: the Rule Reference printed under Situation 9 is "625(b and a.8)", and 625(a)(8) is a minor for "physical contact, using their stick or body, in a manner that interferes with the movement of the goalkeeper, unless otherwise specified in the rules." So how far "any interference" reaches an attacker who never touches the goaltender is not settled in USA Hockey's own terms, whatever the Situation's plain words suggest. The NHL's and the IIHF's is permissive and narrow: it needs "deliberate actions", the player "may be" penalised, and the clause says nothing at all about the goal. Hockey Canada writes no returning-goalkeeper clause — Rule 8.5 and the whole book were searched, flattened, for one — but its Protection of the Goaltender paragraph reaches the contact version of the play from a different direction, since "a penalty under this rule will be called where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with the goaltender anywhere on the ice." That contact clause is not the whole of Hockey Canada's reach, though — its ordinary interference rule sits underneath it and needs no contact at all. Rule 8.3(i) bars impeding "an opponent, who is not in possession of the puck", and the Glossary's own definition of possession excludes a goaltender until he has "control of the puck" — so a goaltender chasing a puck he has not yet controlled is not in possession, and standing in his way home is a minor under 8.3(i) on its own, contact or not. CARHA writes no returning-goalkeeper clause either — the book was searched, flattened, for one — but its ordinary interference rule reaches the play the same way Hockey Canada's does. Rule 66(a)(1) is a minor — or, at the Referee's discretion, a major and a game misconduct — for interfering with or impeding "the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck", and the rule's own Note 1 puts the goalkeeper outside possession: "The last player to touch the puck, other than a goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession." Two minutes is the usual price, not the ceiling: a violent or reckless play can cost a major — in some books an ejection with it — and one that hurts someone can end your game. Under USA Hockey, any deliberate body contact with the goaltender is charging and never just two minutes: a minor plus a misconduct at the least, and a major plus a game misconduct if it is reckless (Rules 607(a), 607(b) and 607(d), Note 1). ⚠️ What survives every book here is the instruction, not the threshold: a goaltender on his way back to his crease is not an obstacle to stand in front of.

Rebounds and loose pucks (NHL and IIHF Rule 69.7, and the PWHL's Rule 71.7). ⚠️ This is the rule that gets quoted for its permission and then stopped, and it runs to four limbs — two of which take the goal off the board. The permission first, in the NHL's words: "In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed." Incidental, and both of you going for the same loose puck. It is not a licence to drive the goaltender backwards, and the next paragraph says so: "In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed." That sentence needs all three of its conditions — the goalkeeper into the net together with the puck, after making a stop, and pushed there by an attacking player — so it is not a rule that any contact which moves a goaltender kills a goal. And read the sentence after it, because it runs your way: "If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the goal can be permitted." So a defenceman who shoves you into his own goalie can hand you the goal your own shove would have cost you. A third paragraph closes the other shape of the same play: where the puck is under a player in or around the crease area, deliberately or otherwise, "a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal" — with the appropriate penalties again "[i]f applicable", and a penalty shot where the puck is deemed to have been covered in the crease deliberately. The IIHF prints all four limbs at the same number and in the same order, differing only in its capitalised Player, its "goal crease" where the NHL writes "crease", quotation marks of its own around "incidental contact" and "Penalty Shot", its opening "In the event" for the NHL's "In the event that", its arrow cross-reference to Rule 63 where the NHL writes "(see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game)" inside the sentence, and its setting of all four limbs off as separate paragraphs where the NHL prints three and keeps the relief inside the second — identically in the 2025/26 v1.1 and 2026/27 editions. The PWHL prints all four limbs too, in the feminine, differing in one thing a reader would not guess: it sends the deliberate-cover penalty shot to "(see Rule 65.7 – Awarded Goal)" where the other two point at Rule 63. Both books also carry the push-in on their disallowed-goal lists, at NHL 78.5(ix) and IIHF 78.5(IX): "When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save." Those are cross-references and not the rule. Both drop "by an attacking player" and write "after making a save" where 69.7 writes "after making a stop", and both send you back to 69.7 — so 69.7's wording is the one to hold.

Neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes a rebound carve-out, and Hockey Canada runs the other way. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 to Rule 8.5(a) is strictly narrower: "Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease." That clause binds the attacking player, not the goaltender, and its only stated exception is an attacker who is fouled by a defending player and as a result cannot avoid the contact. USA Hockey's nearest equivalent is keyed to possession rather than to a rebound — its Casebook at Rule 607, Situation 5, quoted above, lets an attacker engage a goalkeeper physically "in an effort to gain possession of the puck" only "When the goalkeeper has possession of the puck", and withdraws that permission once they are "no longer in control of the puck". ⚠️ Even then it is not a licence to hit him: the same Situation says "any check delivered with the intent to intimidate or punish the goalkeeper should be penalized as charging" — and Rule 607(d) Note 1 needs no intent to intimidate: "Any deliberate body contact or check that is delivered to the goalkeeper shall be penalized as charging." Where Rule 604 bars body checking in your game there is no check to deliver at all. Both negatives are a search by concept as well as by phrase — rebound, loose puck, simultaneous and incidental contact, across USA Hockey's playing rules, its separate Rules and Casebook volume, and Hockey Canada's playing rules with the interpretations printed alongside them. ⚠️ And USA Hockey's Casebook answers a rebound in the crease the opposite way, at Rule 625, Situation 12: an attacker carries the puck into the crease, the goalkeeper knocks it clear, a teammate gains it and shoots it straight back in with the first attacker still standing there, and "the total elapsed time between when the puck is cleared from the crease and when it is shot back into the crease is at most one second" — the goal is disallowed, because "[a]t the time the shot was taken, an attacking player was illegally in the crease." That answers USA Hockey's position bar rather than a contact question, so read it as showing there is no rebound exception to Rule 625(b), not as a ruling on contact.

Being pushed into the goalie (Rule 69.1): if a defender pushes you into the goalie, that is not contact initiated by you, provided you made a reasonable effort to avoid it. If you push a defender into his own goalie, that is treated as contact initiated by you.

The Rule 69 framework above — 69.1's premise and 69.3's crease test — is the NHL's, the PWHL's and the IIHF's. The PWHL numbers goalkeeper interference 71, not 69 — its Rule 69 is Handling Puck, so an NHL rule number looks the play up in the wrong rule — and 71.1, 71.2, 71.3, 71.4, 71.6 and 71.7 carry the NHL's wording in the feminine, word for word. Nothing it changes is about what you may do at the net; what it changes is the review. 71.5 reads "Coach's Challenge — Not applicable", and 71.1 sends the call to a "Central Situation Room Review" instead — so a goal disallowed on you in the PWHL is not one your bench can challenge. USA Hockey and Hockey Canada do not run 69.1's premise at all — neither book contains the sentence about position not by itself determining the goal. And they do not agree with each other. USA Hockey replaces the impairment test with a flat bar on position in the crease, and it does not matter who scored. Hockey Canada's bar is not flat: where the player in the crease stays completely passive and a teammate outside it scores, the goal stands. ⚠️ So where your body is in the paint and a teammate scores from outside it, the two books give opposite answers. Hockey Canada also keeps an impairment test of its own, and it names vision: Interpretation 3 to Rule 8.5(a) has it that an attacker "is NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease. However, if while standing in the crease, the attacking player attempts to play the puck, interfere with the play, or impede the goaltender's vision or movements, then no goal may be scored." That makes it the counterpart of NHL 69.3, which names vision too, and not of 69.1 — and it takes the goal away with no contact at all, so Hockey Canada is not silent on the goaltender's sightline. What it does not write is a vision ground that reaches you from outside the crease, because Interpretation 3's own words are "if while standing in the crease" — and on the reading set out under Screening is legal outside the crease below, the NHL's 69.3 screen ground is keyed to the crease as well, so out there the gap is narrower than the rule texts make it look. The two bars' preconditions differ as well: Hockey Canada asks only where the puck is, while USA Hockey asks who reached the crease first and adds a goalkeeper-out-of-the-crease-area exception Hockey Canada does not write — an exception its own Casebook narrows again, at Rule 625, Situation 9, for a goalkeeper who is skating back to the crease.

USA Hockey Rule 625(b) — in Section 6 under Interference, not in a rule of its own: "No goal may be scored with an attacking player in the goal crease unless the puck has preceded the player(s) into the goal crease or the goalkeeper is out of the goal crease area." No contact and no impairment required. ⚠️ Do not take that second carve-out on its own — its own Casebook reverses it while the goalkeeper is skating back. Rule 625, Situation 9 allows the goal where the goalkeeper is "completely out of their crease" and an attacker precedes the puck in, and then adds: "However, if the goalkeeper is attempting to return to the goal crease and there is any interference by the attacking player who prevents the goalkeeper from making a play, then the goal must be disallowed and an interference penalty shall be assessed." A goalkeeper on his way back is not an empty crease — get in his path and you lose the goal and go to the box for two minutes, and deliberate body contact on the way is charging under Rule 607(d), Note 1, not interference — a minor plus a misconduct at the least, and a major plus a game misconduct under 607(b) if it is reckless. The same clause costs you the zone before that: a neutral-zone face-off "any time an attacking player stands, holds their stick, or skates through the goal crease provided the puck is in the attacking zone, the attacking team has possession of the puck and the goalkeeper is in contact with the crease."
Hockey Canada Rule 8.5, filed under Restraining Fouls: "Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking team may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the goal will NOT BE ALLOWED." Hockey Canada writes the onus into the rule — "The onus is always on the attacking player and players who do not make an effort to avoid the goaltender must be penalized" — and defines the foul as impeding the goaltender "by actual physical contact". Its position bar is not absolute: where an attacker is in the crease but does not interfere and another attacker outside it scores, "the goal WILL BE ALLOWED provided that the player who was in the goal crease does not attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or obstruct the Goaltender's view or movements." On contact outside the crease, though, Hockey Canada reaches further than the NHL's 69.4 does, not less far. Its Protection of the Goaltender paragraph gives the same "not fair game" protection an explicit geographic reach the NHL's version does not write: "A Goaltender is not 'fair game' just because they are outside their goal crease. A penalty under this rule will be called where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with the goaltender anywhere on the ice."

The push-in carve-out is the sharpest divergence in this section, and it is not a tier ordering. USA Hockey's relief is the broadest written, and CARHA writes the same one — "if the attacking player has been physically interfered with by the actions of a defending player that causes them to be in the goal crease, play shall not be stopped and any legal goal scored shall be allowed", with no reasonable-effort proviso. But it reaches your position only: Rule 617(c)(4) disallows the goal for an attacker "positioned in the crease" or "interfering with the goalkeeper", and the push-in parenthetical is written into the first limb alone, while 625(a)(8) stays a minor for "physical contact, using their stick or body, in a manner that interferes with the movement of the goalkeeper, unless otherwise specified in the rules." CARHA gives the goal back on the same terms and then takes your body back on different ones. Its Rule 66(b) allows the goal with no reasonable-effort proviso — "If a player of the attacking team has been physically interfered with by the actions of any defending player so as to cause them to be in the goal crease, and the puck should enter the net while the player so interfered with is still in the goal crease, the goal shall be allowed." ⚠️ But the same rule writes an avoidance condition twice, and the first of the two takes the goal back as well as booking you, so do not read that relief as cover for a collision. A minor goes to an attacker whose team has the puck who "is interfered with by a defending player, but fails to attempt to avoid making contact with the goalkeeper" — and "[i]n addition, if a goal is scored it shall be disallowed" — and a minor goes to an attacker not in possession who is "tripped or caused to fall and fails to attempt to avoid contact with the goalkeeper, whether the goalie is in or out of the goal crease." Hockey Canada writes the strictest version of it — but it is not the only book that reaches the pushed-in attacker, and the place to look is the reference table rather than the rule. The NHL and the IIHF each give this exact play a numbered section of their Rule 69 table, under a heading that names it. The NHL's Table 14: "A player pushes, shoves, or fouls another player into the goalkeeper, who is in or out of the crease." The IIHF's Table 16 in the 2025/26 book, renumbered Table 14 in the 2026/27 edition and reprinted there word for word: "A Player forces another Player into the goalkeeper, who is inside or outside the goal crease." Both allow the goal where the pushed-in attacker "made a reasonable effort to avoid contact", and both take it away and penalise him where he did not. The NHL's entries B and C under that heading give "a minor and/or major penalty", C adding "at the discretion of the Referee"; the IIHF's Situations 3B and 3C both read "The Referee in their judgment must assess the appropriate penalty to the attacking Player." ⚠️ So do not read 69.2's "intentional or deliberate" wording as your protection here — both books decide this play on reasonable effort rather than on intent, and under the IIHF the penalty is mandatory. USA Hockey is the one that says nothing about the push-in case either way on the penalty side: its 625(a)(8) minor could reach him, while its relief in 625(b) speaks only to whether the goal counts. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 is its relief, and it is narrow — the exception is an attacker "fouled by a defending player and, as a result, is unable to avoid contact with the goaltender." Interpretation 2 then says that where an attacker is "tripped, hooked, cross-checked, or otherwise interfered with, falls, and makes contact with the goaltender ... If the player does not make an effort to avoid contact with the goaltender, then they must be penalized for interference with the goaltender" — and "The referee should also penalize the defending player who committed the initial foul under the appropriate rule." So being fouled into the goalie is a defence in every book here and a complete one in none of them.

And Hockey Canada's penalty ladder for this rule does not stop at a minor. Everything above is about whether a goal counts; 8.5's lettered clauses are about what happens to the player, and they run further than the NHL's do. 8.5(a) is the minor. 8.5(b) reaches "A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty" three ways: at the referee's discretion "based on the degree of violence of impact", and then mandatorily — "will be assessed" — in two named cases. "A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty will be assessed to any player who charges the goaltender" (its Note 1 refers the definition of charging to Rule 7.4(b) Interpretation 2), and "…to any player who injures an opponent by an Interference with the Goaltender infraction that would otherwise call for a Minor penalty." 8.5(c) is a match penalty "to any player who attempts to injure or deliberately injures a goaltender by Interference." 8.5(e) makes the game misconduct automatic on any 8.5(b) major, and 8.5(d) removes the ten-minute rung entirely: "No Misconduct penalty may be assessed for interference with the goaltender." So under Hockey Canada the tiers are two minutes, ejection, or match — nothing in between — and a foul that would have been two minutes becomes an ejection the moment it injures. This is the same shape as Hockey Canada's 9.2(b) for cross-checking and 7.3(b) for body checking: discretionary on violence, mandatory on injury. The ejection tier is not Hockey Canada's alone, and neither is removing the referee's discretion. Every book read here reaches a major and a game misconduct on this class of play, by a different route each time — and CARHA Hockey makes it mandatory too. Its Rule 52(b): "A Major penalty and a Game Misconduct shall be assessed to any player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease or who injures an opponent as a result of a charge" — shall, where its own 52(a) writes "at the discretion of the Referee" one clause earlier. The NHL's own Rule 69 does not stop at a minor: 69.2 gives "a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate)" for intentional or deliberate contact, and 69.8 reaches "an appropriate penalty (minor or major and/or game misconduct)" plus supplementary discipline under Rule 28. Charging a goalkeeper is a separate route again, and the NHL names all three tiers in the rule: Rule 42.1 — "A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease." And 42.5 takes the choice away once a major is called for a charge that injures the face or head: "a game misconduct shall be imposed" — the PWHL's 42.5 in the same words. 🇬🇧 The IIHF's 42.1 writes only "A penalty shall be imposed" on the same facts, leaving the tier to 42.2 to 42.4 — and its 42.4 needs both limbs, a Player who "recklessly endangers their opponent by 'charging'" and who "would not be sufficiently sanctioned by imposing a major penalty". USA Hockey writes no bare minor for it at any limb of Rule 607: 607(c) is "A minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty… to a player who body checks or charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease or privileged area", quoted in full above — and it makes the top tier mandatory too: 607(b), "A major penalty plus game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who recklessly endangers an opponent as a result of charging", and 607(d) Note 1 makes any deliberate body contact with the goalkeeper a charge. Its match penalty, 607(e), is "may" — though the general Rule 602(a) says a match "shall be assessed to any player or team official who recklessly endangers or attempts to injure any opposing player", and the book does not say which of the two governs a reckless charge. What stays Hockey Canada's alone is writing the ejection into the limb itself: its injury trigger sits inside the interference rule and names the game misconduct there — a foul that would have been a minor becoming a mandatory ejection the moment it injures. CARHA reaches the same ejection by a different route, set out below. NHL Rule 69 carries no injury trigger of any kind, read through from 69.1 to 69.8; USA Hockey Rule 625's only penalty limbs are 625(a) and 625(c), both minors, so its ejection tier comes from Rule 607 and a charge, not from an injury; IIHF 69.8 is a pointer to supplementary discipline and nothing more, where the NHL's names a game misconduct; and CARHA's own interference-with-the-goalkeeper rule, 66(b), starts at a minor with a major only "[a]t the discretion of the Referee" — ⚠️ but CARHA carries an injury trigger inside that same rule, and it is mandatory. Rule 66(e): "A Major penalty shall be imposed on any player who injures an opponent by interference." ⚠️ And in CARHA a major is an ejection whichever rule it came from, so 66(e) ejects and so does 66(b)'s discretionary major. Rule 30(a): "A player, including a goalkeeper, assessed a Major penalty shall be ruled off the ice for the remainder of the game (Major penalty plus Game Misconduct)", its Note naming the accidental high stick as "[t]he only exception to this rule" — and the Note to 62(b) restores the game misconduct where an accidental high stick injures. CARHA Rule 16(i) Note 1 lets a referee keep a team's only dressed goalkeeper on the ice after an ejecting penalty, with a teammate who was on the ice serving the time. ⚠️ Price an injurious collision with a goalkeeper in that book at your game and at least a one-game suspension (Rule 32(d)), not at five minutes. The IIHF's Rule 69 was read for its tiers only — no comparison of its 69.1 to 69.7 text against the NHL's is made here beyond the passages quoted earlier in this section.

The practical instruction is the same under every book here and the reason differs: get out of the crease — and the red line around it counts as crease in every book that settles the question in its rule text or glossary. Find out which book your league runs.

Screening is legal outside the crease

Standing in the goaltender's line of sight, without contact and without being in the crease, is normally legal. The paragraph of Rule 69.3 that reaches a screen asks for three things at once, and the test is conjunctive. It disallows the goal, with no contact at all, where an attacker "establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal" — that is the NHL's wording; the IIHF prints "impair their ability to defend their goal" and puts quotation marks of its own around "significant position". Every part of that is load-bearing: the position inside the paint, the obstructed vision and the impaired ability to defend, not any one of them on its own. Both books then define the position — the player's body, "or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time" — the NHL printing "his body" and the IIHF "their body". ⚠️ That is the fourth paragraph of 69.3, and it is not the whole rule: the first paragraph, set out above, costs you the goal for any contact with a goalkeeper in his crease, incidental or otherwise. So what makes a screen illegal is being in the crease and what your position does to the goalie once you are there — screening itself is not the offence.

One instance of a relationship, not a place to stand. The shaded wedge is the line between the puck at the right point and the goaltender, and the screen stands inside it with both feet outside the crease. The wedge swings as the puck moves: stand where the goalie’s eyes are, not where the puck is going. Not drawn: keep your stick on the ice, because a screen is also a tip and rebound threat, and move late. Nothing here establishes that the position drawn is legal. Staying out of the blue paint is necessary and not sufficient. NHL Rule 69.1 reaches an attacking player who, "either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal" — no contact required. The IIHF’s own 69.1 carries the same positioning limb in its own words. Read whole, though, both books put the crease at the centre of it: the sentence that actually disallows a goal requires the attacker to have entered the goal crease, and both books’ reference tables apply exactly that line, allowing the goal where an attacker plants himself on the crease line or outside the crease and obstructs the goalie’s vision (NHL Table 14, and IIHF 2025/26 Appendix IV Table 16, renumbered Table 14 in 2026/27, at Situation 5E). So keep both feet out of the paint, and off the crease line at its edge. USA Hockey and Hockey Canada both count that line as part of the crease, and so does the IIHF’s Rule 1.7 — but the IIHF’s own appendix table allows the goal to a screener planted on the line: the same play answered in opposite directions inside one book, and unresolved. Off the line is the answer that works under every book. Here "screen" means the goaltender’s sightline and nothing else. ⚠️ Never meet a goal post head first, and never duck. Head up, chin off your chest instead. A head-down, head-first hit on a goal post is the same injury as one on the boards, and can happen at walking speed.

Diagram from playing without the puck · What the shapes and fills mean

But read clause (1) of Rule 69.1 whole before leaning on it in either direction. It names an attacking player who "either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal". 🇬🇧 Your book writes that clause in its own words: the IIHF's 69.1 reads "either by their positioning or by a 'relevant contact', impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within their goal crease or defend their goal", and defines that term in the same rule as "any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking Player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body." The positioning limb is the same in both books. What that clause is not is a direction to disallow the goal. It is introduced by "Goals should be disallowed only if", which states a necessary condition — a ceiling on when a goal may be taken off the board — and a necessary condition being met is not the same as the rule's own test for voiding a goal being met. The sentence in 69.1 that actually disallows one is keyed to the crease, in both books — in the NHL's words: "If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." 🇬🇧 The IIHF's says the same in its own pronouns: "If an attacking Player enters the goal crease and, by their actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." 69.3's no-contact screen ground is keyed to the crease too — a "significant position within the goal crease" — and 69.4, the rule for outside the crease, takes the goal for contact rather than for position. ⚠️ Say that about the goal and not about the whole of 69.4, because the same rule's returning-goalkeeper clause does reach an attacker's position out there for a penalty: one whose "deliberate actions" prevent a goalkeeper who has played the puck outside the crease from returning to it "may be penalized for goalkeeper interference", and no contact appears anywhere in that clause. That is a reading of the rule's structure rather than something either book states in terms — but neither book leaves the case unanswered, because both print it in their Rule 69 situation tables and both allow the goal, at Situations 5C and 5E, where the attacker impairs the goalkeeper from outside the crease or planted on the crease line; those are appendix interpretation rather than operative rule text, and they are set out two paragraphs below. Both books also provide that Rule 69 "will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s)". So the honest statement is: a clean screen from outside the paint is legal, referees allow it constantly, and no clause of Rule 69 read here takes the goal away for where you stood unless you were in the crease — but enforcement is expressly the referee's judgement, so this is not something you will get to argue from the ice.

And here the two North American amateur books are more permissive than the NHL, not less — ⚠️ the opposite of the direction they run inside the crease. USA Hockey's 2025-29 playing rules contain no provision about screening a goaltender or obstructing a goaltender's vision at all; its only goaltender-interference grounds are position in the crease and physical contact. Hockey Canada speaks of the goaltender's view in exactly two places, Rule 8.5's crease paragraph and Interpretation 3, and both reach only a player who is in the crease — Interpretation 3 saying an attacker is "NOT committing a foul by simply standing in the goal crease", and its Note 1 that "No penalty would be assessed unless the attacking player's body or stick makes actual physical contact with the goaltender." So neither book writes a no-contact ground that reaches a screen set from outside the crease — Hockey Canada's vision ground is real, but it begins "if while standing in the crease", and USA Hockey writes none at all. Under those two the screen from outside the paint is simply legal, and the crease line does all the work — which, on the reading above, is what it does under the NHL and the IIHF as well. (Both negatives are a search of the two playing rule books, and of USA Hockey's separate Rules and Casebook, which carries no screening or goaltender-vision provision either: its only two uses of "screen" are Rule 625(a)(1)'s protective screen set on a checker and a sled-hockey pushers' rule, and none of the seventeen Casebook situations under Rule 625 reaches a screen. Hockey Canada prints its interpretations inside its playing rules, so both of its mentions were searched with them.)

The three books then work the outside-crease screen through in their own situations, and the answer lines up with the rule's crease keying rather than against it. The NHL heads a block of Reference Table 14 "Screening Situations"; the IIHF reproduces the same five situations at its 2025/26 Appendix IV, Table 16, Situation 5, under a heading reading "Contact with the goalkeeper" instead; the PWHL prints the same five under "Screening situations" in its own Table 14. Situation 5C — an attacker in front of the goalkeeper, outside the crease, in motion, who "impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend" the goal — is answered "Goal is allowed." So is Situation 5E, where the attacker "plants themself on the crease line or outside the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair their ability to defend their goal, and a goal is scored." 🇬🇧 Those are the IIHF's pronouns; the NHL's table prints the same two rows with "himself" and "his", and the PWHL's with "herself" and "her". The only two of the five the books disallow, 5B and 5D, both put the attacker inside the crease. These are appendix interpretations rather than operative rule text — but they are printed in both rulebooks, Rule 69 sends the reader to them (the NHL at 69.3 and 69.4, the IIHF at 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4), and they apply the crease keying the rule already carries rather than repealing anything: the sentences of Rule 69 that direct a goal to be disallowed for a player's position name the goal crease, and the rule for outside it takes the goal for contact only. The one that does not is 69.1's own positioning clause — the NHL's (1) and the IIHF's (I) — and it is why these rows carry the weight here rather than the structure does: its positioning limb ends "or defend his goal" in the NHL's book and "or defend their goal" in the IIHF's, naming no location at all, under a premise that covers an attacking player "whether inside or outside the crease" — the IIHF writing "whether inside or outside the goal crease". It sits under "Goals should be disallowed only if" — a ceiling on when a goal may be taken off the board rather than a direction to take one off — and both books then answer this exact play in their own appendix. So the four-book gap described just above is narrower than the rule texts make it look. ⚠️ Take them as strong support for the instruction below and not as a guarantee — and not as covering the crease line itself, which Situation 5E treats as outside the crease while the IIHF's Rule 1.7 has it that "[t]he marked line belongs to the Goal Crease". Rink Map sets that collision out; this document does not resolve it, and the instruction is to keep clear of the line as well as of the paint.

This is the single most valuable rules fact for a forward. Get in the goalie's eyes; keep your skates out of the blue paint and off the red line around it. See Offensive Zone Play and Winger.

The trapezoid (goalkeeper's restricted area)

This section is the penalty. The geometry — the NHL figures, the depth, the IIHF metric equivalents and where the lines actually run — belongs to Rink Map, which covers the rink's dimensions and gives them in full.

The goalie may not play the puck behind the goal line outside the marked trapezoid behind his net. Violation is a two-minute minor for delay of game (NHL Rules 27.8 and 63.2(viii); the IIHF numbers the same rule 27.7). The determining factor is the position of the puck, not the position of the goalie — and both books say so in those words.

The trapezoid: the goaltender’s restricted area behind the net — 22 ft wide at the goal line, widening to 28 ft at the boards, shaded here at NHL dimensions. Playing the puck behind the goal line outside it is a two-minute delay-of-game minor; the rule text’s one exception is a goaltender keeping skate contact with the crease, which excuses playing the puck and never freezing it; and the IIHF’s Situation Handbook adds two more — a puck stopped on the goal line, and one that only deflects into you. USA Hockey and Hockey Canada mark no trapezoid, but both still stop the goaltender at the centre red line and limit where the puck may be frozen. In England and Wales, England Ice Hockey’s Rule 22.3 says the area is not currently enforced — which frees where a goaltender may play the puck and never where they may freeze it. One thing stays legal either way: coming out to cut down the angle, making the save and covering the puck (IIHF 63.2(VI)). Being checked excuses a freeze only inside the crease (63.2(VII)); out of it, falling on a loose puck as an attacker bears down is still a minor. Cover the rebound.

Diagram from rink map · What the shapes and fills mean

The rule text writes exactly one exception, and it is not the one people think: the minor is not assessed when the goalie plays the puck while maintaining skate contact with his goal crease. There is no teammate-based exception and no "he was only touching it" exception. ⚠️ That is the count in NHL 27.8 and IIHF 27.7 themselves. The IIHF's own Situation Handbook then adds two boundary rulings you would not get from the rule, and both go the goalie's way: Situation 27.6 has a goalkeeper whose skates are both inside the restricted area stop the puck on his stick on the goal line, and answers that "[t]he goal line is not considered to be in the restricted area and therefore no penalty is assessed" — "the puck must be over the goal line to be considered to be in the restricted area"; and Situation 27.9 has a puck come off the glass and hit a retreating goalkeeper inadvertently, answering "No penalty. Rule states that the goalkeeper must play the puck to be penalized." Situation 27.11 confirms the skate-contact exception in play. All three are in the same words in the 2025/26 (v1.0 and v1.1) and 2026/27 Handbooks, and the Handbook ranks itself below the rule book. No NHL equivalent is quoted here, because the NHL's own situation handbook is not publicly obtainable and none of it has been read — so read those three as the IIHF's answers only.

Related, and often forgotten: a goalie who participates in the play beyond the centre red line takes a minor. All four books carry this rule, under four different numbers, and all four use the same operative words: "participates in the play in any manner" — which is broader than playing the puck. NHL Rule 27.7 and IIHF Rule 27.6 are the same sentence bar the pronouns — the NHL's he and him for the IIHF's they and them — and both set "(intentionally plays the puck or checks an opponent)" inside that phrase as a parenthetical gloss rather than as a limit on it. USA Hockey Rule 407(c) assesses the minor where a goalkeeper "deliberately participates in the play in any manner when they are beyond the center red line". Hockey Canada Rule 4.13(c) reaches a goaltender who "intentionally participates in the play in any manner when they are beyond the centre red line" — and carries no penalty of its own, sending the offence instead to Rule 8.3(a) – Interference, which is a minor.

The centre-red-line test is the opposite way round in the two North American amateur books, and this is the half almost nobody knows. This is about the red line and not about the trapezoid. Under the NHL and the IIHF the red-line rule says in terms that "the position of the puck is the determining factor for the application of this rule" — NHL 27.7 and IIHF 27.6, word for word. ⚠️ Under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada it is the position of the goalkeeper's skates. USA Hockey's Casebook, Rule 407 Situation 13, asks whether it is legal for a goalkeeper "whose skates are beyond the center red line to play the puck which is still on the same side of center red line as the goal they are defending", answers no, and gives the reason: "In this situation the determining factor is the position of the goalkeeper's skates and not the puck." Hockey Canada's Interpretation 2 to Rule 4.13(c) puts the same facts and rules the same way — "The determining factor is the position of the goaltender's skates and not the position of the puck. Assess the goaltender a Minor penalty for Rule 8.3 (a) – Interference." And Hockey Canada does not leave the skates test to an interpretation: Rule 8.3(a) itself assesses a minor to any goaltender who "plays the puck with their skates over the centre red line", in operative rule text — worded narrower than 4.13(c)'s "in any manner", though both routes end at the same minor.

So a goalie who steps over the line to reach back for a puck still on his own side is unpenalised under the NHL's and the IIHF's rule as written, and takes two minutes under both North American amateur books. How much North American rec and youth hockey runs on USA Hockey's book or Hockey Canada's is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it. Find out which book you are under before your goalie starts handling pucks anywhere near the red line — and if you do not know, keep the skates behind it, which is legal in all four.

On their own words all four require something deliberate — but the NHL and the IIHF carry the intent word only inside their parenthetical. Their operative phrase is "participates in the play in any manner", with "intentionally plays the puck or checks an opponent" bracketed after it, so reading those two books as requiring intent depends on treating that parenthetical as defining the phrase. USA Hockey's rule needs the participation to be "deliberate" and Hockey Canada's "intentional", both in the operative sentence itself. Only USA Hockey publishes the worked case: Casebook Rule 407 Situation 12 has a goalkeeper on the way to the bench, over the red line, "accidentally struck by the puck" — no penalty, because "the goalkeeper is not considered to be participating in the play if the puck contact was accidental." The other three books have not been searched here for a situation of their own on accidental contact, so read that one as USA Hockey's answer and the other three as a reading of their rule texts.

Cite 27.8 for the penalty and never for the dimensions. Rule 27.8 still describes the area as beginning "six feet (6') from either goal post" — the pre-2014 wording, from before the trapezoid was widened by two feet a side for 2014-15. It is stale, not self-contradictory: six feet outside each post gives 18 feet at the goal line, diverging perfectly coherently to the 28 feet at the boards that both rules quote. It is the old shape, accurately described. Rule 1.8 is the geometry, and every figure here follows it.

Who has the trapezoid: the NHL (Rules 1.8 and 27.8) and IIHF play (Rules 1.8 and 27.7) — both read directly in the rulebooks. The KHL is commonly said to have one as well, though that one is unverified here: no KHL rulebook was available to check it against. The IIHF's own 2021 announcement of its unified rulebook dates the IIHF's adoption to the 2021-22 season; the NHL's commonly given 2005-06 date is in no rulebook held here.

USA Hockey has no trapezoid — no restriction on where a goalkeeper may play the puck behind the net; the words "trapezoid", "designated area" and "restricted area" are in neither the 2025-29 playing rules nor the Casebook. Hold on to that scope, because it is not a general licence. USA Hockey restricts where a goalkeeper may play the puck in one place — Rule 407(c), which makes it a minor to participate in the play beyond the centre red line — and where they may freeze it in another, Rule 614(c) — ⚠️ but do not read the privileged area as a safe harbour, because the area boundary is only one of that rule’s four triggers and the others bite inside it too, among them failing to play the puck when unpressured and holding it against the goal frame or the boards. Hockey Canada has none either — no goalkeeper's restricted area anywhere in its rink section, and the single "designated area" in the book is the one Rule 5.4(b) stations a Goal Judge in. But it bars freezing more broadly than USA Hockey does: Interpretation 3 to Rule 10.1(a), clause v, provides that once a goaltender leaves the crease "they will not be allowed to freeze the puck. If they do, they will be assessed a Minor penalty. No warning will be issued." CARHA has none either — "trapezoid", "restricted area" and "designated area" appear nowhere in its 2020 book. But it bars freezing on the same shape USA Hockey does, at Rule 58(b): a minor to a goalkeeper who deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into their body, or holds it against the goal or the boards, "when the puck is behind the goal line and the goalkeeper's body is entirely outside the boundaries of the goal crease area." That is not CARHA's whole limit: its Rule 61(b) is a minor for a goalkeeper who "deliberately holds the puck and in the opinion of the Referee, is causing an unnecessary stoppage of play", with no location in it. So all three of the no-trapezoid books here still limit where a goalkeeper may freeze the puck, even though none of them limits where they may play it behind the net — do not read the missing trapezoid as a licence to smother pucks back there in any of them. How much rec, beer-league and youth hockey that adds up to is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it.

🇬🇧 In England and Wales the trapezoid's status is unsettled, and this is the one place on this page where "the IIHF column is yours" is not the whole answer. The IIHF book carries the rule at 27.7, so on the face of it a British goaltender is bound by it. But England Ice Hockey's Rules & Regulations 22.3 say the "Goalkeepers' Restricted Area is not currently enforced to allow ice rinks the necessary time to make the changes to implement this rule." That is the 2024-25 edition, and whether the suspension still stands is not settled by anything published here.

The suspension does not reach all of Britain, because the body issuing it does not. England Ice Hockey's own Rule 1.1 makes it the National Governing Body "in England and Wales". The playing instrument everywhere else is the In-House Rules, which IHUK and the British Universities Ice Hockey Association adopt "to be applied in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the Home Countries)" — and neither the 2025-26 nor the 2026-27 edition mentions the restricted area at all, both having been searched for it, and neither amends Rule 27. So in Scotland, Northern Ireland and BUIHA hockey, IIHF 27.7 reads as live. The Elite League runs the IIHF book with its own casebook, and that casebook has now been read: it amends no Rule 27 at all, and its preamble leaves "the official 2026 - 2027 IIHF Rulebook and IIHF Situation Handbook" as the ruling "[f]or all rules not mentioned" in it. So IIHF 27.7 reads as live in the Elite League too.

Play it the safe way round in both directions: if it is your goalie, assume the rule binds — keep him out of the corners. If it is theirs, assume he may come for the puck anyway, and do not build a dump-in on the trapezoid holding. Ask your league, and look behind the net to see whether the lines are painted — a hint rather than a ruling, since 27.7 turns on where the puck is and not on the markings. UK and England Rules carries the full amendment list.

But USA Hockey is not restriction-free behind the net — ⚠️ it restricts where the goalie may freeze the puck, and that one is the same two minutes. Rule 614(c) assesses a minor for delay of game to a goalkeeper who falls on or gathers the puck and causes a stoppage when "the puck is behind the goal line and their body is entirely outside of the goal crease", or when "the puck is outside the boundaries of the 'goalkeeper's privileged' area." Those are two of its four triggers, and the other two carry no location at all — failing "to play the puck with their stick when provided the opportunity to do so prior to being pressured by an attacking player", and holding or placing it "against any part of the goal frame or boards". The rule's own Note defines that area as "an area outlined by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards" — a rectangle from the faceoff-dot line back to the end boards. It is far more generous than a trapezoid and it does include the ice directly behind the net, but it excludes the corners. The same area also protects the goalie — and that half is not two minutes. Rule 607(c) assesses "[a] minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty… to a player who body checks or charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease or privileged area" — there is no bare minor anywhere in it, and the book's own Summary of Penalties files 607(a,b,c) under the heading "Minor plus Misconduct or Major plus Game Misconduct" to the same effect. 607(e) adds that "[a] match penalty for reckless endangerment may also be assessed for charging." The Casebook at Rule 607, Situation 4 is where the referee chooses between the three: the minor plus misconduct where an attacker going hard to the goal "makes an honest attempt to avoid the goalkeeper once it is realized contact is unavoidable", and "the major plus game misconduct, or match penalty option" where he "makes no attempt to avoid the goalkeeper and recklessly endangers the goalkeeper by accelerating through the contact, or by extending the arms or dropping the shoulder to deliver the hit". That same situation publishes the one case in which nothing is called: where "a defending player has forced the attacking player into their own goalkeeper, no penalty should be assessed provided the attacking player has clearly made every attempt to avoid the contact with the goalkeeper." ⚠️ And leaving the region does not make him fair game. 607(d): "A goalkeeper is NOT 'fair game' because they are outside the privileged area. A penalty for interference or charging should be called in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper." §6 above sets out how the Casebook keys that to whether the goalkeeper has the puck.

The goalkeeper’s privileged area, shaded — USA Hockey’s own term and USA Hockey’s own shape. Neither the words nor the construction that draws them was found anywhere in the NHL, IIHF 2025/26 or 2026/27, Hockey Canada or CARHA books, so this is a region one book draws and the others do not, rather than a rule the others write differently. Rule 607(d) Note 2 draws it "by connecting the end zone face-off spots with an imaginary line and imaginary lines from each face-off spot running perpendicular to the end boards", so it travels with whatever sheet you are on. It takes in the net front, the goal line and all the ice directly behind the net — but not the corners. ⚠️ The two red dashed lines behind the net are not part of it. That is the trapezoid, a different and much smaller shape, which this sheet carries because the rink these diagrams draw is the NHL-dimensioned one, and which USA Hockey marks nowhere at all. Two rules turn on it: 614(c) makes it a delay-of-game minor for a goalkeeper to freeze the puck when "[t]he puck is outside the boundaries of the ‘goalkeeper’s privileged’ area", and 607(c) prices contact on him inside it. Read the shading as a boundary rather than as a licence, in either direction. Inside it a goalkeeper still may not freeze the puck where "[t]he puck is behind the goal line and their body is entirely outside of the goal crease" (614(c)(1)). Outside it he is still not "fair game" (607(d)). And a goaltender anywhere in this shading, behind his own net included, is not somebody to finish a check on. 607(c) writes no bare minor for body checking or charging one there. It is "[a] minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty", with 607(e) adding that "[a] match penalty for reckless endangerment may also be assessed for charging."

What the shapes and fills mean

Practical consequence: if you play without the trapezoid, your goalie is a third defenceman on every dump-in and your breakouts can be built around him retrieving pucks in the corners — but under USA Hockey he must play those corner pucks, not smother them, ⚠️ and the corners are outside the privileged area, so move those pucks quickly: out there USA Hockey's Casebook (Rule 607, Situation 5) lets an opponent "physically engage" a goalkeeper who has the puck "in an effort to gain possession of the puck", and only where Rule 604 allows body checking — though Note 1 to 607(d) still calls any deliberate body contact or check on a goalkeeper charging, at least a minor plus a misconduct (607(a)). Skaters: take the puck, not the body, and never treat a goalkeeper in the corner as "fair game". If you play with it, your defencemen must retrieve everything wide, and the goalie's job is to stop the puck behind the net and leave it. Confirm which before your first game — it changes your breakout. See Breakouts.

Freezing the puck

The goalie is allowed to cause a stoppage, but only in defined circumstances. Holding the puck with the hands for longer than three seconds unless actually being checked, throwing it forward toward the opponents' net, dropping it into his pads or onto the goal net, racing out of the crease to beat an attacker to a loose puck and then jumping on it, and piling snow or obstacles near the net are each a minor under the NHL and IIHF books, which write this rule in the same terms (Rules 63.2, 67.3) — and the last becomes an awarded goal, but only once you have been replaced for an extra attacker, "otherwise a minor penalty shall be assessed" (Rule 67.5 in both). Coming out to cut down the angle, making the save and covering the puck straight off it is legal — but play it and then fall back on it because an attacker is bearing down, and it is a minor (IIHF Situation 63.1).

One of these reads far stricter than it is enforced. Rule 63.2(vii) penalises a goalkeeper who, inside his own crease, deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into his body "unless he is actually being checked by an opponent". Read literally, that would make the routine freezes you see in every game illegal, and it is not how any game is officiated. Goaltender covers this one and sets out how the written rule and the "unnecessary stoppage" standard of Rule 67.3(ii) interact in practice, together with the published Hockey Canada (Interpretation 3 to Rule 10.1(a)) and USA Hockey (Rule 610(b)) interpretations, both of which apply a pressure test the NHL does not publish. ⚠️ The IIHF publishes one too, and that is the book British hockey runs on. Its Situation Handbook at Situation 67.8 has a goalkeeper cover the puck with no pressure being applied, the other team mid-line-change, "in an obvious attempt to get a stoppage of play"; the referees rescinded the delay-of-game minor for an untied pad strap and the ruling is that they should not have — "The minor penalty for delay of game should still have been assessed", under Rule 67.3 (II). ⚠️ Do not act on the bare literal reading — and if your league's referees are strict about it, find out early.

There is one further consequence that is not a penalty at all but hurts more — and it belongs to the NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL: if the attacking team shoots the puck in from beyond the centre red line and the goalie freezes it, the faceoff is in the goalie's own end, the defending team may not change lines, and they may not take a timeout (NHL and IIHF Rules 63.8 and 87.1, written in the same terms; the PWHL's Rules 65.8 and 89.1). The attacking team also chooses which dot. The change bar is not absolute, and the same paragraph of 63.8 says so: it permits a substitution "to replace an injured player, or when a penalty has been assessed which affects the on-ice strength of either team". Those two are the whole list here — the pulled-goalkeeper limb that appears elsewhere in 63.8 and in Rule 81.4 is absent, because the team being restricted is the goaltender's own. Neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes this consequence at all. In both of them a goalkeeper's freeze is a penalty question rather than a substitution one, and neither book ties a no-change or a no-timeout to a frozen shoot-in. Hockey Canada goes the other way on the timeout even after an icing: Rule 6.7(d)(iii) provides that "Either team is permitted to take their time-out… following an icing", barring only substitutions during it. So in those three books, a soft freeze on a routine dump-in is punished exactly like an icing. ⚠️ Under the other two it costs you no change and no timeout — but do not read that as a free freeze, because both of them make an unpressured one a penalty in its own right: USA Hockey Rule 610(b) assesses a minor to a goalkeeper "who has an opportunity to play the puck prior to being pressured by an attacking player, but instead intentionally causes a stoppage of play", and Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 10.1(a), clause iii, assesses one "after one warning" to a goaltender who "freezes the puck in the crease when not under pressure from attacking players" — the pressure test flagged in the warning above.

The goalie playing the puck

Beyond the trapezoid and the red line, the goalie is a skater with the puck. He can pass, he can rim, he can set up a breakout. The rules that constrain him are:

Hand passes by the goalie in the defending zone are legal, like anyone else's (Rule 79.2).
The goalie cannot participate in a faceoff (Rule 76.1).
A minor penalty to a goalie is served by a teammate who was on the ice at the stoppage, designated by the coach through the captain, and that substitute may not be changed (Rule 27.1). A penalised player may not serve a goalie's penalty.
A goalie may not go to his bench during a stoppage for a stick, equipment or instructions without the referee's permission — otherwise he must be replaced immediately or his team takes a bench minor (NHL Rule 27.6; IIHF Rule 27.5, which carries this limb and the next one under a single number).
A minor for leaving the immediate vicinity of the crease during an altercation (NHL Rule 27.6; IIHF Rule 27.5). This is why goalies stay in their net during scrums.

Two of the 27.x numbers in this section belong to different rules in different books, and following the wrong one lands you on the wrong offence. The NHL numbers the crease-and-bench rule 27.6, the centre red line 27.7 and the restricted area 27.8. The IIHF shifts all three down one — 27.5, 27.6 and 27.7. ⚠️ So the "27.7" cited above for the centre red line is the NHL's; in the IIHF book, which is the base rule set everywhere in Britain, 27.7 is the trapezoid. Goaltender sets out the full numbering, including where the IIHF's own Situation Handbook disagrees with its own Rule Book.

And the crease-during-an-altercation minor travels with two carve-outs that are easy to miss, both written into the rule's own text. Where the altercation is "in or near the goalkeeper's crease", the referee "should direct the goalkeeper to a neutral location and not assess a penalty for leaving the immediate vicinity of the goal crease." And where the goalkeeper is legitimately outside the crease "for the purpose of proceeding to the players' bench to be substituted for an extra attacker" and is then drawn into an altercation, "the minor penalty for leaving the crease would not be assessed." Those are the NHL's words at 27.6; IIHF Rule 27.5 carries both sentences too, differing only in capitalising "Players' bench" and in writing "they subsequently become" where the NHL writes "he subsequently becomes". Both carve-outs are permissive, so the bare rule reads stricter than it is.

All four books print this offence in their playing rules, and the crease-adjacent altercation is the one where they part — on whether you need the referee's permission first. Under the NHL and the IIHF the referee "should direct the goalkeeper to a neutral location and not assess a penalty", and nothing is asked of the goalie. USA Hockey builds the same offence around the referee's instruction rather than around the crease line. Rule 615(e) assesses a minor to any player who "fails to move immediately and directly to their players' bench (or goal crease for a goalkeeper) when instructed to do so by the Referee during an altercation", and the book's own Summary of Penalties files that clause under Goalkeeper Infractions as "Leaving crease area during altercation". Its Casebook then applies the rule to this case the same generous way the NHL and the IIHF do: Rule 615, Situation 26 has an altercation in the vicinity of the crease and the goalkeeper leaving "to remain out of the altercation", and rules no penalty, with the referee directing them "to go to their players' bench or at least away from the altercation" — ⚠️ though "if the Referee does not give their permission and the goalkeeper gets involved in the altercation outside of the crease, the minor penalty must be assessed." Situation 27 asks flatly whether a goalie may go to their own bench when a fight breaks out near the crease, and answers "Yes." Both give their authority as "Rule Reference 615(e)" — they are applying a playing rule, not supplying one. Hockey Canada carries it in the rule text as well. Rule 7.10(a): "A Minor penalty will be assessed to a goaltender who leaves their crease during a fight. This should be recorded on the Official Game Report as 'Leaving the Crease'." Its Interpretation 1 to Rule 7.10(a) settles only the crease-adjacent case, and answers: "With the permission of the Referee, the goaltender may proceed to their bench. If they do so on their own accord, they are to be assessed a Minor penalty for leaving their crease during a fight." Hockey Canada has a neutral-location route too — Rule 7.10(d) requires that "The goaltenders must stay in their goal creases or proceed to a neutral zone designated by the Referee."

On the narrow question of moving before the referee has told you to, Hockey Canada is the strictest of the four. Its Interpretation 1 puts a minor on a goaltender who goes to the bench "on their own accord" and asks nothing further, where USA Hockey's Situation 26 needs the goalkeeper to have got "involved in the altercation outside of the crease" as well, and the NHL's and the IIHF's books answer the crease-adjacent case by instructing the referee rather than by asking anything of the goalie. So the safe instruction is Hockey Canada's, because it satisfies all four: stay in your net, and if you need to move, get the referee's permission first. And nothing here licenses joining in — in either book, and the ejection is in the playing rules rather than in a casebook. USA Hockey Rule 615(d): "A game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player or goalkeeper who is the first to intervene in an altercation then in progress. This penalty is in addition to any other penalty incurred in the same incident." Note how wide that is — it names goalkeepers expressly and attaches no crease condition, so it reaches a goalie who intervenes from anywhere on the ice. The Casebook then works the goalie's case at Rule 615, Situation 10 — a goalie who leaves the vicinity of the crease and is first in takes "a minor penalty for leaving the crease, plus a game misconduct for being the first to intervene" — and gives its authority as Rule References 615(a), 615(d) and 615(e), so it is applying 615(d) rather than supplying it. Hockey Canada ejects the same act at Rule 7.10(e)(ii), a game misconduct to a player who "joins in a fight or acts as a peacemaker" — and read that second limb, because going in to break it up is caught as squarely as going in to fight. And it reaches a goaltender, even though it says only "a player." Hockey Canada's Glossary settles it: "PLAYERS: The members of the team physically participating in the game. The goaltender is considered a player, except where explicitly stated because special rules or privileges apply to them." Rule 7.10(e) states no such exception, so a goalie who goes in — to fight or to separate them — is ejected under it. (Rules 7.10(a), 7.10(d) and 7.10(f) do name goaltenders in their own text; that is the Glossary's "except where explicitly stated" limb at work, not a sign that a bare "player" excludes them.) The second carve-out — the goalie already on the way to the bench for an extra attacker — was found only in the NHL and IIHF texts; no USA Hockey or Hockey Canada counterpart was located here, which is a limit of this search rather than a finding that none exists.

8. Faceoffs

Faceoffs covers this material and carries it in full — the procedure, the stick-down order, the restraining lines and the fifteen-foot rule, every violation, the ejection rules, the post-icing free violation, and the technique. What this section keeps is the location table, which is a rules reference you will want in one place, and the two things you must not leave this document without.

The nine spots

Every faceoff in the game must be taken at one of nine marked spots — one at centre ice, four in the neutral zone, four in the end zones — and no faceoff may be taken within 15 feet of the goal or the side boards, or anywhere other than a spot (Rule 76.2). What is painted at each of them is Rule 1.9, and belongs to Rink Map.

Why the draw is where it is

Four common stoppages and the faceoff spot each one sends the draw to, drawn on one sheet — four separate situations, not one play. Your own end is at the left, the end you are attacking at the right. Marked at centre ice: the start of every period, and every draw after a goal. Marked in your own end: an icing you caused, or a penalty you took. One box is drawn round one of the two spots there because the rule names the END rather than the dot — under the NHL and the IIHF the attacking team chooses which of the two, while USA Hockey gives no choice of dot at all and Hockey Canada gives it in Junior and Senior divisions only, and gives it to the attacking team — your opponents, in the situation drawn here — who lose it unless they tell the referee before the line change procedure starts. Marked outside the blue line you were attacking: an offside where the puck was carried over. A puck SHOT or PASSED over the line offside goes back to the zone the puck came from instead, which can be your own end. Marked in the end you are attacking: a goalie freeze, or any other stoppage between the end-zone dots and the end boards, which under the NHL and the IIHF draws at the spot on the side it happened — drawn here on the lower side. USA Hockey answers that one differently, taking the nearest spot only where its own last-play face-off applies, and sending a stoppage the attacking team caused in the attacking zone out to the neutral zone instead. These four are the common ones and not the whole rule, and the boxes are markers rather than anything painted on the ice.

Diagram from faceoffs · What the shapes and fills mean

Faceoff location is a penalty and reward system, and reading it tells you who just did what. The principle is that the draw goes into the zone of whoever caused the stoppage, and the wronged team is often given the choice of which of the two dots. Three of those choices are worth knowing because you can exercise them. After a penalty, the draw is in the offending team's end and the team going on the power play picks which dot (Rule 76.2). After an icing, it is in the offending team's end and the attacking team picks (Rule 81.2). The same choice goes to the attacking team when a goalie freezes a shoot-in from beyond the red line, or when a defender knocks his own net off. It is a real choice and somebody on your team should be making it deliberately — Faceoffs covers how to use it. The full location list:

Situation	Where the draw goes
Start of a period, after a goal, or a penalty assessed after a goal or at the end or start of a period	Centre ice
Penalty assessed	One of the two end-zone spots in the offending team's zone — and the team awarded the power play chooses which dot (Rule 76.2)
Icing	End zone of the offending team; the attacking team chooses the dot (Rule 81.2)
Offside — carried in	Neutral-zone spot nearest that attacking zone
Offside — passed or shot in	The faceoff spot in the zone closest to where the pass or shot came from — a spot, not the patch of ice it left
Intentional offside	End-zone spot in the offending team's defending zone
Goalie freezes a shoot-in from beyond the red line	Goalie's own end zone; attacking team chooses the dot
Defender accidentally dislodges the net	Defender's own end zone; attacking team chooses the dot
Puck out of bounds	Nearest spot in the zone from where it was shot or deflected out
Hand pass in the attacking zone	Neutral zone, outside the defending team's blue line
High-sticking the puck	The spot giving the offending team least territorial advantage
Goal disallowed for goalie interference	Nearest neutral-zone spot outside the offending team's attacking zone
Officials erred on an icing or offside	Centre ice (icing) or nearest neutral-zone spot (offside, USA Hockey)
Two violations at once	The spot giving the offending team least territorial advantage

The rest of that list is worth having in words, because most of it never comes up until it happens to you. The NHL and the IIHF write all of these in the same terms unless noted, so a British reader takes them as they stand.

Intentional offside — deliberately putting the puck offside to buy yourself a whistle — sends the draw to your own end. NHL Rule 83.7 orders the puck "faced-off at the end face-off spot in the defending zone of the offending team", and both books repeat it in their delayed-offside lists: "If deemed to be an 'intentional off-side' – face-off spot in the offending team's end zone" (NHL 83.6(iv), IIHF Rule 83.6(IV)). USA Hockey Rule 630(c) sends it to the same place, "the nearest end zone face-off spot in the defending zone of the offending team."
Puck out of bounds goes back to where the puck was shot from, not to where it left the ice — "the nearest face-off spot in the zone from where it was shot or deflected out of play" (NHL Rule 85.1; IIHF Rule 85.5 carries the same test). So flipping it over the glass from your own end gains you nothing, and from the defending zone it is a minor as well — as is a deliberate one from anywhere on the ice. See the delay-of-game bullet in section 4.
A hand pass in your attacking zone does not draw where it happened. NHL and IIHF Rule 79.3: "When a hand pass violation occurs by a team in their attacking zone, the ensuing face-off shall be conducted at one of the face-off spots outside the defending team's blue line in the neutral zone." You lose the zone for it.
High-sticking the puck goes to "the spot that provides the least amount of territorial advantage to the team striking the puck, either where the puck was contacted illegally, or where it was last played by the offending team" (NHL and IIHF Rule 80.2). ⚠️ That rule has a second sentence, and it is the one that costs you something: "If the attacking team is at fault and the play is stopped while the puck is in the attacking zone, the ensuing face-off must be moved to the nearest face-off spot in the neutral zone." Bat a puck down above your shoulders in the offensive zone and you are out of the zone.
A goal disallowed for goaltender interference takes the draw out of the zone too: "the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending team" (NHL Rule 69.6; IIHF Rule 69.6, which writes "relevant contact" where the NHL writes "contact"; PWHL Rule 71.6, in the NHL's words).
Two violations at the same stoppage go to "the spot that provides the least amount of territorial advantage to the offending team", and both books give the same worked example — "high-sticking the puck and intentional off-side" (NHL and IIHF Rule 76.2). ⚠️ Hockey Canada answers the overlapping case on a different test. Its Rule 6.3(b) covers an infringement "committed by players of both teams" and puts the draw "at the face-off spot in the same zone that is nearest to where stoppage of play occurred, excluding centre ice" — nearest spot, not least advantage.
Officials erred. On a wrongly called icing the draw goes to centre ice (NHL Rule 81.2, in section 5 above), and Hockey Canada Rule 6.3(a) writes it too, for "when the officials incorrectly stop play for an icing infraction." ⚠️ On a wrongly called offside, only USA Hockey answers: Rule 630(e) — "If the official shall have erred in stopping play for an offside infraction, the face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot to where play was stopped." No counterpart was found in the NHL's or the IIHF's books, searched by rule number at 76, 81, 83 and 85 and by concept across both in flattened text, nor in Hockey Canada's, whose only official-error clause is the icing one.

"Least territorial advantage" runs through several of those, and neither book defines the phrase. Read it as the official picking, from the spots the rule leaves open, the one that does the team at fault the least good — that is a reading of the words rather than anything either book spells out.

One further location rule changes behaviour after the whistle, and it can cost you the zone you have just earned: if a point man or a player off the bench from the attacking team enters the zone past the outer edge of the end-zone faceoff circle during a scrum, the draw is moved out to the neutral zone (Rule 76.2). If your team has just earned a defensive-zone draw in the other end, do not go join the scrum — you will give the zone back.

The two things you must not leave without

1. A winger encroaching gets the centre ejected from the draw. Two rules do the work together, which is why both get cited: Rule 76.6 supplies the consequence — a player other than the one taking the draw moving into the faceoff circle before the drop means "the offending team's player taking the face-off shall be ejected from the face-off circle" — and Rule 76.7 enumerates the violations and adds the escalation: a second violation by the same team on the same draw is a bench minor. Both skates stay outside the circle and outside the hash marks until the puck is down; skate contact with the line is permitted, crossing it is not, and your stick may be inside provided it touches neither an opponent nor his stick. Your best faceoff man being removed because a winger leaned in early is the most consequential rules mistake a winger makes, and it is entirely avoidable.

2. ⚠️ The IIHF used to answer that the other way, and as of its 2026/27 edition it does not — but one IIHF divergence survives, and it deletes a technique. The IIHF Official Rule Book 2025/26 ejected nobody: a teammate moving into the circle meant "the offending team taking the 'face-off' shall receive a warning for a 'face-off' violation" (IIHF 2025/26 Rule 76.6), and the same centre took the re-drop. The 2026/27 edition, published June 2026, replaced that sentence with the NHL's — "the offending team's player taking the face-off shall be ejected from the face-off circle" (IIHF 2026/27 Rule 76.6) — and at 76.3 and 76.4 it now has the offending centre replaced where the older book had the linesperson assess a warning. So paragraph 1 above is the answer under both books now, and a British reader reads it as written rather than as somebody else's rule. ⚠️ And in Britain that no longer rests on working out which IIHF edition your league is administering, because IHUK has written the removal into its own rules. The IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27, published 25 July 2026, add a Section 10 – Game Flow amendment to Rule 76 that the 2025-26 edition did not contain at all: "With the exception of face-offs following icings, the linesperson shall immediately replace the centre for all violations." Those rules are the "overriding interpretation of how the IIHF Rule Book is to be applied domestically", and they apply "in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland" — the Elite League is not named in them, so they do not answer for an EIHL game. ⚠️ What does answer for one is the EIHL Casebook, and it writes no Rule 76 at all — so on its own preamble, which leaves the IIHF book ruling "[f]or all rules not mentioned" in it, an Elite League face-off runs under IIHF Rule 76 unamended: the stick order below still stands there, and the replacement of the centre is the IIHF's rather than IHUK's. ⚠️ The same amendment changes one thing in the other direction, and it is the stick order: "Either centre can now put their stick down first for a face-off." Both IIHF editions give that order to the defending centre at eight of the nine spots; in IHUK competition neither centre has to go first, and the linesperson is told to require "the whole of their stick blades (not toe or heel) in the white portion of the face-off circle", which is more than IIHF Rule 76.7's "at least the toe". What has not changed is a violation the NHL does not have at all: "one of the centers wins the face-off by using the skates" (IIHF Rule 76.3(VI), both editions). Kicking the puck back with your feet is legal in the NHL and a violation internationally — under the 2025/26 book it burned your team's one warning, and under the 2026/27 book it gets your centre replaced before the puck is dropped. Faceoffs sets all of it out in full, along with the USA Hockey differences.

Two category distinctions that matter more than they look, both fully treated in Faceoffs. First: closing your hand on the puck is never a faceoff violation — it can be a penalty in all four books, and worse than a penalty near your own net. Under the NHL and IIHF it is a minor (Rule 67.2), and the note to 67.2(ii) escalates it: "When this is done in his team's goal crease area, a penalty shot shall be assessed (67.4) or a goal awarded (67.5)." Under USA Hockey Rule 618(a) a hand closed on the puck and not dropped at once is only a stoppage outside the crease — but at the dot the puck is on the ice, and covering a loose puck with your hand is a minor (Rule 614(a) and its Note) — and inside the crease that same 618(a) makes it a penalty shot or optional minor, and an awarded goal on an empty net — ⚠️ though that book alone conditions the awarded goal, on the act having "prevented an obvious and imminent goal" (614(b)). Hockey Canada 10.2(a)(iii) makes the closed hand a minor only where it "gains an advantage", and 10.2(a)(v) a penalty shot where the infraction occurs inside the offending team's crease. Batting the puck with the hand to win a draw is a different offence again: a minor for delay of game — faceoff violation (Rule 67.2). And while the draw is live the two takers may not play the puck with a hand at all, however briefly, until a third player has touched it (Rule 76.5, and the PWHL's Rule 78.5) — no counterpart was found in USA Hockey or Hockey Canada. Second: no timeout may be granted following a faceoff violation (Rule 87.1), so there is no way to buy yourself out of one. (On high sticks at the dot, see the high-sticking bullet in section 4: accidental contact on a centre bent over at a faceoff is explicitly not a penalty under Rule 60.1 — under the NHL and IIHF books; USA Hockey and Hockey Canada write no such exception, though a wild swing at a bouncing puck still is.)

9. Officials and Signals

Who is on the ice

The NHL uses the four-official system: two referees (orange armbands) and two linespersons.

Referees (Rule 31) have general supervision of the game and full control of all officials and players; their decision is final. They impose penalties, give the final on-ice decision on disputed goals, and one of them drops the puck to start each period. They may consult the linespersons before deciding.

Critically: referees do not call offside or icing. Rule 31.4 says so explicitly — those are the linespersons' duties, unless a linesperson is somehow unable to act.

Linespersons (Rule 32) are responsible for offside and icing, and they conduct every faceoff except the one that starts each period (Rule 32.2). They also:

May stop play and report too many men, thrown objects, interference with an official, an illegally received stick, or bench interference.
Must stop play for premature goalie substitution, a serious injury the referees missed, faceoff encroachment, an illegal hand pass, high-sticking the puck, icing, offside, the puck out of bounds or unplayable, a goal the referees did not see, and spectator interference.
Must report to the referees the circumstances of majors, match penalties, misconducts, game misconducts, and abuse of officials. If a linesperson sees such an infraction by an attacking player before a goal that the referees missed, the goal is disallowed and the penalty assessed.
May call too many men (Rule 74.2).

Under CARHA Hockey's book the on-ice crew is two rather than four, and both of them are Referees. Rule 40(a) provides that "[f]or all CARHA Hockey games, there shall be two Referees, one Official Scorer, one Game Timekeeper, one Penalty Timekeeper, and two Goal Judges when available", and 40(d) that "[t]wo Referees will be used in all games and they shall have equal authority. If the Referees are not of the same opinion on any certain play, the Referee who was closest to the play shall have the final decision." Five of those seven are off the ice: the book's Glossary defines On-Ice Officials as "[t]he Referees who are appointed to directly supervise the application of the Rules from the ice", and lists the Off-Ice Officials as "Official Scorer, Game Timekeeper, Penalty Timekeeper and two Goal Judges." So the two Referees do both jobs — Rule 41(d) has them stop play "for any other infractions of the rules. (e.g. icing the puck, offsides, etc.)", and the signal pages are headed "Referee's Signals" and describe a back and a front Referee where the NHL's name a linesperson. ⚠️ The book does contradict itself once here, and that is worth knowing rather than being told flatly that CARHA has no linespersons: its icing signal, on page 82, reads "The back Referee or Linesman in the play signals a possible icing by fully extending either arm over their head" — the only occurrence of the word "Linesman" anywhere in the book, naming a position Rule 40 never appoints and no other rule gives a duty to. CARHA never reconciles the two and nothing in it says which governs. Take Rule 40 and the Glossary as the answer and expect two Referees, but know the stray clause is there. CARHA governs CARHA-affiliated leagues only, and how much rec, beer-league and youth hockey runs on its book is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it — elsewhere the size of the crew is set by the league rather than by a rulebook, so ask. Where the crew is two rather than four, that is a genuine difference in what they can see, and it is worth adjusting your expectations accordingly.

The signals you should recognise

From Rule 29. These are the ones with immediate consequences for what you do next:

Signal	What it looks like	What it means for you
Delayed offside	Non-whistle arm fully extended straight above the head (29.7)	Get out of the zone and tag up. Do not touch the puck or chase the D.
Delayed penalty	Non-whistle arm fully extended above the head (29.8) — same as delayed offside	Look at who is doing it. Linesperson at the blue line = offside. Referee = penalty. Head to the bench for the extra attacker.
Icing (pending)	Back linesperson raises either arm fully overhead, holds it until the whistle or the wave-off (29.19)	Puck is going down; if you are chasing, the race is to the puck, and it will be judged by the time someone reaches the dot.
Icing (completed)	The back linesperson points to the faceoff spot, skates there, turns backwards near the blue line and crosses his arms on his chest (29.19)	Icing confirmed. No change for the offending team.
Wash out	Sweeping sideways motion of both arms across the body at shoulder level, palms down (29.35)	No goal (referee), or no icing / no offside (linesperson), or hand pass / high-stick washed out. Play on.
Time-out / unsportsmanlike conduct	Both hands forming a "T" in front of the chest (29.31, 29.34)	Identical signals — context decides.
Misconduct	Both hands on hips (29.25)	Ten minutes for the player. Your team is short only if he also took a minor, major or match.
Penalty shot	Non-whistle arm fully extended, pointing to the centre-ice faceoff spot (29.26)	—

Common infraction signals worth knowing on sight: hooking (tugging both arms toward the stomach), slashing (chopping one hand across the opposite forearm), tripping (striking the leg below the knee, both skates on the ice), holding (clasping one wrist), cross-checking (both fists forward and back from the chest), interference (arms crossed in an "X" on the chest), elbowing (tapping an elbow), boarding (fist into the open palm), charging (fists rotating around each other), high-sticking (both fists clenched, one above the other, at forehead height), roughing (fist clenched, arm extended to the side), hand pass (open palm pushing forward), and checking from behind (both arms extended forward from the chest at shoulder level, palms out).

Hooking is where a signal gets mistaken for a rule. A signal announces the call; ⚠️ it is not the definition of the offence. The NHL's hooking signal (Rule 29.18) is a tugging motion. NHL Rule 55.1 asks only whether the stick was used "in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent", and requires no tug at all.

Note: three further signals are not described here because there are none to describe. For match penalty (29.24), throwing equipment (29.30) and too many men on the ice (29.32) the rulebook prints "No signal in the National Hockey League. NO SIGNAL" — the same entry it gives for head-butting and kicking below.

The rulebook also notes there is no signal in the NHL for head-butting (29.14) or kicking (29.22).

Talking to officials

The rules on this are unusually blunt. Under Rule 39 (Abuse of Officials) and Rule 75 (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) the ladder runs minor, then misconduct, then game misconduct — but the books state that as the usual course, not as a step the referee has to take, and the two words that make the difference are their own. NHL 39.4(ix) reads "In general, participants displaying this type of behaviour are assessed a minor penalty, then a misconduct penalty and then a game misconduct penalty if they persist", and the sentence is repeated at 39.5(vii), 75.4(v) and 75.5(vi) — and at IIHF 39.4(IX), 39.5(VII) and 75.4(V), so a British reader is under it too. ⚠️ So do not count on a free minor first. Named limbs of both rules start higher with nothing below them: a misconduct on a penalised player who does not proceed directly to the penalty bench when instructed (NHL 39.4(vi)), who enters or remains in the Referee's crease while he is reporting to another official (39.4(v)), or who disputes a ruling after he has entered the penalty box and play has resumed (75.4(iv)); and a game misconduct on the first offence for obscene gestures anywhere in the rink (75.5(ii)), for leaving the penalty bench to challenge a ruling (39.5(iv)) — ⚠️ in the NHL that one also carries an automatic suspension for "the next three" regular "League and/or Play-off games of his Club", a figure that does not travel: the IIHF's own Rule 39.5(IV) states the offence and omits the penalty entirely, leaving Rule 70.4 to supply a game misconduct with discretionary supplementary discipline rather than a fixed suspension — and for deliberately applying physical force to an official (39.5(iii)), which routes to Rule 40. 39.5(ii) makes the point in the book's own voice: it gates that game misconduct on a bench minor having been assessed already, then lifts the gate where the conduct happens after the game, "without the necessity of having been assessed a bench minor penalty previously." ⚠️ Never put a hand on an official: in USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA deliberate force against one is a match penalty, and in the NHL, the PWHL and the IIHF a game misconduct with a suspension on top (Rule 40) — automatic in the NHL and the PWHL, at least ten games and four games respectively for force without intent to injure — USA Hockey 601(e)(1) for "deliberate physical force", Hockey Canada 11.5(c) for deliberate force even "without causing injury", and CARHA 71(a) for any player who "intentionally touches, holds, or pushes" a Referee.

Practically:

The standing is much narrower than most players think. Rule 6.1: "Only the Captain, when invited to do so by the Referee, shall have the privilege of discussing any point relating to the interpretation of rules." Two things follow. First, it is the captain alone — an alternate inherits the privilege only when the captain is not on the ice (Rule 6.2). Second, and more important, you do not have standing until you are invited. Approaching an official to open a discussion is not a right the letter confers.
A complaint about a penalty is not a "rule interpretation", and complaining is itself a minor. Rule 6.1 is explicit: "Any Captain, Alternate Captain or any player who comes off the bench and makes any protest or intervention with the officials for any purpose shall be assessed a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct under Rule 39 – Abuse of Officials." So the captain may ask about how a rule is being interpreted, when invited — but may not dispute a call, and is penalised for trying.
The moment to say something is not the moment you disagree. It is at the next natural break, and only if the official opens the door.
Only ask, and only when invited. Never tell. A calm question about interpretation may get an answer. "That's terrible" gets ten minutes. Note that even the mild-sounding opener is a protest if the official did not invite it.
Complaining will never get a call reversed. The one route that reverses anything is the Coach's Challenge, which is the coach's to make rather than yours and does not exist everywhere — in EIH and SIHA competition the In-House Rules remove on-ice video review and the challenge with it, so there is no route at all (see Video review). CARHA Hockey Rule 40(c) states the adult-rec position flatly: "A Referee shall have full authority and the final decision in all matters under dispute. The Referee's decision shall be final on all questions of fact and not subject to appeal." What you can occasionally influence is what the officials are watching for. That is worth having a captain who is good at it, and worth everyone else keeping quiet.
The rec-league crew is smaller than the one you watch on television, and it is doing more jobs. CARHA Hockey Rule 40(a) appoints "two Referees, one Official Scorer, one Game Timekeeper, one Penalty Timekeeper, and two Goal Judges when available" — no linesperson at all — and Rule 41(d) has those same two referees "stop play for any other infractions of the rules. (e.g. icing the puck, offsides, etc.)" Two officials are covering offside, icing, the puck and everything behind the play at once, so things are missed constantly, in both directions, and complaining that something was missed is worse than pointless. That is CARHA's book and binds CARHA-affiliated leagues only; how many officials your own league puts on the ice is a question for your league.

See Team Play and Culture and Mental Game.

10. Rule Set Differences That Actually Matter

The differences below are the ones that change what you should do on the ice. Everything else is trivia.

Read the Home Countries column against the IIHF one beside it. IHUK and the BUIHA run the IIHF book and amend it in writing, across "England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the Home Countries)" and in university hockey, so "As IIHF" is a positive statement, not a blank: it means the In-House Rules carry no amendment to that rule, and the IIHF cell to its left is therefore the rule you play under. Only the cells that say Amended are British departures, and each of those quotes the In-House Rules. The Elite League is the exception, and its book has now been read. The Motorpoint EIHL Casebook 26-27 makes its own interpretations "replace or in specific cases, supersede" the IIHF ruling, and leaves "the official 2026 - 2027 IIHF Rulebook and IIHF Situation Handbook" as the ruling "[f]or all rules not mentioned in the EIHL Casebook". It names 22 rule numbers, and none of them is Rule 27, 43, 48, 60, 74, 76, 81 or 83 — so the "As IIHF" cells below hold in the Elite League too. (It does reach Rule 63, but only at 63.5, objects thrown on the ice, which touches none of the comparisons here.) Six of the British amendments do not reach it: the EIHL keeps video review and the Coach's Challenge, writes no Rule 76 face-off amendment and no broken-stick rule, penalises a missing neck guard with a warning and then a minor rather than an immediate misconduct — though a player who keeps going back out without it still climbs its equipment ladder to a misconduct and then a game misconduct — runs a fighting scheme of its own, and plays overtime in every competition with a five-shooter shootout rather than three. ⚠️ Several individual amendments still scope themselves more narrowly than the document does, writing "in EIH or SIHA competition" where the Introduction reaches all four home nations; where a cell quotes that wording, it is the source's.

	NHL	IIHF	Home Countries	USA Hockey	Typical rec / beer league
Trapezoid	Yes (Rules 1.8, 27.8) — minor for delay of game; the only exception the rule writes is skate contact with the crease	Yes (Rule 27.7) — same rule; 6.80 m at goal line, 8.60 m at boards	Unsettled in England and Wales. The In-House Rules amend Rule 1 but not Rule 27; England Ice Hockey's Rules & Regulations 22.3 say it is "not currently enforced" — and EIH governs England and Wales only, so in Scotland, Northern Ireland and BUIHA hockey, whose instrument is the In-House Rules and is silent, 27.7 reads as live. The EIHL Casebook has now been read and amends no Rule 27, and leaves the IIHF book ruling on everything it does not mention — so 27.7 reads as live in the Elite League. Everywhere the answer is unsettled: if it is your goalie assume it binds; if it is theirs assume they may come for it	No trapezoid — the goalie may play the puck anywhere behind the net, corners included. Two other limits still bind: Rule 614(c) makes it a minor to freeze it on four triggers, only one of which is leaving the "goalkeeper's privileged area" (dot line back to the end boards; corners excluded), and Rule 407(c) makes it a minor to play it beyond the centre red line — see the row below	Usually no (varies — check)
Goalie participating beyond the centre red line	Minor (Rule 27.7) — the puck's position is the determining factor	Minor (Rule 27.6) — same test	As IIHF — no amendment to Rule 27	Minor (Rule 407(c)) — test reversed: the goalkeeper's skates decide, not the puck (Casebook, Rule 407 Situation 13)	Follows the book adopted. Hockey Canada reverses it too — Rule 4.13(c) / 8.3(a) Interference: the goaltender's skates decide, not the puck (Interpretation 2)
Icing type	Hybrid (since 2013-14) — race is to the puck, decided by the time a skate reaches the end-zone dot	Hybrid (since 2014) — wording near-identical to NHL, but adds the no-race paragraph noted above	As IIHF — hybrid, including the no-race paragraph. ⚠️ But the competition regulation can remove icing outright: the IHUK Junior RoC's Appendix D gives "No icing calls at U12", inside the U12 format, which also runs the clock unless both teams agree otherwise beforehand, changes lines on a buzzer and does not stop play for offside	No-touch / automatic in standing hockey — complete the instant the puck crosses the goal line	Usually no-touch; some touch, some hybrid (varies — check). Hockey Canada is split by category: hybrid icing applies in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option (Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(e)); in every other category, including the rest of minor and female hockey, it is automatic
Icing: "gaining the line"	Puck on the stick, not the skate, must contact the centre red line to nullify a potential icing (Rule 81.1)	The same sentence, word for word (Rule 81.1)	As IIHF — the In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 81	No such concept. The phrase is not in the book, and neither is the stick-versus-skate distinction; Rule 624 (Note) judges "the point of last contact with the puck"	Follows the book adopted. Hockey Canada likewise has no "gain the line" — Interpretation 5 to Rule 6.7(c)(ii) judges "where the puck was last contacted, relative to the centre red line". CARHA has neither the phrase nor the distinction either, and writes its own test: Rule 65(a) nullifies icing on "[a]ny contact with the puck over the centre red line, with the puck continuing down over the goal line", and in the leagues that divide the ice at the blue lines, Rule 65(b) moves that to "the defensive teams blue line" without saying whose — ask your league where its line is
Icing: line change	Not permitted for the offending team; three exceptions (pulled goalie, injured player, strength-changing penalty)	Not permitted — same bar (Rule 81.4), and that rule adds a fourth exception, "a Player with a broken skate", which is its only difference from NHL 81.4. ⚠️ The fourth one is in 81.4 only: Rule 82.1 restates the same icing bar with the other three and not this one, the book does not say which governs, and the Situation Handbook does not settle it — its Situation 81.7 in fact answers that a change is permitted "only" on a strength-changing penalty, which is over-broad but adverse. Do not count on it — and do not send a replacement over on it: Rule 82.2(V) sends them back and warns the coach, and that warning is one per team per game, after which it is a bench minor for delay of game	As IIHF — including the broken-skate exception the NHL does not have, and including the 81.4/82.1 mismatch behind it: the In-House Rules amend neither rule, and their Introduction makes silence adoption — "Unless otherwise stated, all rules will be enforced in line with the IIHF Rule Book"	Permitted after an icing — Rule 624 restricts no substitution. The change is still not free, because the change window closes at every stoppage and being late is penalised in two tiers, each after a warning. Rule 204(a) allows no further substitution "[o]nce the line change procedure has been completed" and makes a subsequent "undue delay by either team in placing their lineup on the ice or changing players" a minor; Rule 610(g) makes a team that "causes any delay by making additional substitutions" a bench minor. The Casebook at Rule 613 Situation 15 — a false face-off — orders players attempting to change "back to the players' bench", the same remedy as IIHF 82.2(V) — citing the provision as "610(h)", which the printed rule does not have	Varies. Hockey Canada bars it only in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option (Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(d)); in every other category the change is permitted. Three exceptions, and the third is wider than the NHL's — a pulled goaltender, an injured player, and "when a penalty or penalties have been assessed to either team", where the NHL requires a penalty that affects on-ice strength, so coincidental penalties permit a change under Hockey Canada and not under the NHL. Senior is at the Member's option, so in an adult Hockey Canada league assume you may not change until told otherwise; 6.7(d) states no penalty itself, but Hockey Canada Rule 10.1 – Delay of Game names "'no change' situations (Rule 6.1 (f))" expressly: a warning first, then a bench minor under 10.1(a)
Accidentally knocking your own net off: line change	Not permitted (Rule 63.8) — three exceptions: a pulled goalkeeper, an injured player, a strength-changing penalty — with the attacking team choosing the dot. *The bar follows the defending* team's act only** — an attacker who displaces the net is Rule 63.4, which lets play run on and attaches no bar	Not permitted — IIHF Rule 63.8 is the same rule, covering both a defending skater and a goalkeeper, and identical across the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions	As IIHF — the In-House Rules contain nothing against Rule 63	No such bar was found. Rule 610(d) stops play for a displaced goal frame and makes a deliberate displacement a minor, but attaches no substitution consequence; Rule 612 sets no faceoff location for it; nothing in Rule 204 or in the Casebook situations on Rules 610 and 617 supplies one	Varies. Hockey Canada writes the bar at Rule 6.1(g), but only in U18 AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option — the scope of its icing bar — and routes it to the same restrictions as Rule 6.7(d)(i). Younger than U18 AAA, and in Senior unless the Member has adopted it, there is none. CARHA's rule book writes no substitution bar for a dislodged net either
Change on the fly: how far from the bench	Five feet (5') from the players' bench and out of the play before the substitute steps on (Rule 74.1). Two triggers turn the overlap into a bench minor: either player plays the puck, or makes physical contact with an opponent	1.50m and out of the play (Rule 74.1) — the same measurement in metric, and the same two triggers, in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions alike	As IIHF — the In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 74	No distance at all. Rule 204(b) requires only that the retiring player "shall always be at the players' bench and out of the play before any change is made." ⚠️ And it adds a third trigger the other three books have not got — a bench minor where the change "causes their team to gain a competitive advantage", with no puck played and nobody hit. ⚠️ It is not free-standing, though. The Casebook, Rule 204 Situation 8, applies it to a change that turns a 2-on-1 against into a 2-on-2, and gives its reason on two limbs joined by and: "The fact they are still both on the ice and Team A gained a territorial or positional advantage as a result of the change is considered to be a violation of the rule and should be penalized." The advantage has to be gained while both players are still on the ice; a change that has already finished is not caught by it	Hockey Canada gives twice the NHL's room — Rule 6.1(a), "at the Players' Bench (within 3.05m (10 ft.)) and out of play", penalised under Rule 10.7(a). CARHA Rule 19(b) writes the same 10 ft
Icing: shorthanded exemption	Yes — with one carve-out, and it bites at the expiry rather than during the major. Rule 81.6's third paragraph withdraws it from a team that has "neglected to ensure there is a player on the penalty bench to exit upon the expiry of the penalty" — they "are not permitted to ice the puck". Rule 20.3 is the permission behind it: with the penalised player "removed from the game or… injured", the team "does not have to place a substitute player on the penalty bench immediately, but must do so at a stoppage of play prior to the expiration of the major penalty" — unless minors are on the clock alongside the major, where the substitute is due "immediately"	Yes — 81.6's second paragraph is the NHL's timing test word for word, but the book has no third paragraph, so no major-penalty carve-out. The substitution duty behind it is tighter and is priced all the same: 20.3 wants the substitute "immediately" where the NHL allows until a stoppage before the expiry, and 68.2 makes a breach a bench minor — exactly as the NHL's own 68.2 does	As IIHF — the In-House Rules amend neither Rule 81 nor the timing test, so no major-penalty carve-out reaches you	Yes only at Youth 15-Only+, Girls 16U+, HS and Adult	Usually yes
Icing: goalie waves it off	Yes — feigning, attempting or skating toward the puck nullifies it	Yes	As IIHF	No — only actual contact	Varies. ⚠️ Hockey Canada is split by category: its general list (Rule 6.7(c)) has no goalkeeper limb at all, the only goalkeeper-movement wave-off sits inside hybrid icing (Rule 6.7(e)(vi)) in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option, and needs both skates moving toward the puck, and outside those categories Interpretation 8 to Rule 6.7(c)(iii) rules ICING. CARHA: no goalkeeper-movement limb — Rule 65(g)(2) reaches an actual touch and nothing less
Icing: timeout	Not permitted to the defensive team (Rule 87.1)	Not permitted — IIHF 87.1 is the NHL sentence verbatim, third limb included	As IIHF — no relief anywhere on that list	Permitted — Rule 636(f) attaches no icing condition, but 636(f) gives no timeout at all in a curfew game	Varies. Hockey Canada expressly permits it in the three categories where the no-change bar applies (Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(d)(iii)), with the icing team still barred from changing during it; its timeout is 30 seconds, and in minor and female hockey it exists only in stop-time games where the local Member has approved it — though it is mandatory at Hockey Canada minor and female regional and national championships (Note 3 to Hockey Canada Rule 6.17(e))
Body checking	Legal (men's)	Legal (men's). Women's: hitting with clear intention of playing or gaining possession of the puck, subject to the rule's exception; no using the boards to eliminate an opponent, and no step or glide into one (Rule 101.1)	As IIHF for the checking rules themselves — but the categories they attach to are British: junior is U19/U16/U14/U12/U10 by birth year and unisex, women's Adult runs from the 14th birthday (In-House Rules, Rules 100.1, 200). Neither book sets a checking age — but the competition's own Rules of Competition do, and they are what binds you: IHUK junior hockey is non-checking at U10 (cross-ice) and U12 (full ice) and checking from U14 upward (Junior RoC, Game Length & Format); the WNIHL is non-checking at U16 and senior (WNIHL RoC); the NIHL is full-ice checking (NIHL RoC, which is titled for Divisions 1 and 2 and reaches those only); and U10 states it in terms — "Bodychecking is NOT allowed in U10 matches" (U10 RoC). See Body Contact and Battles	Prohibited at 12U and below, all girls'/women's, all non-check adult classifications (Rule 604)	Ask your league — under USA Hockey it turns on which adult classification your league runs in: the Glossary names Adult non-check among four, and no book records how many leagues are in one
Illegal check to the head	Minor only (Rule 48.3); 48.4 the same for a game misconduct. Match penalty available for intent to injure (48.5)	*Head or neck, and it can end your game.* No clean check to the head or neck (48.1), with four enumerated triggers including jumping (leaving their skates) to deliver a blow; 48.3 gives a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment. One carve-out, and all of it is conditions: IIHF 48.1 does not penalise a square bodycheck delivered with no upward motion on a puck carrier skating with their head down toward the checker — so it reaches only the carrier coming toward the checker, not a head-down player hit from the side — and the IIHF book attaches no penalty under Rule 48 to the player whose head was down. But the low player is not unpenalised generally — IIHF 44.1 bars crouching down near the boards to avoid being bodychecked where doing so causes an opponent to tumble over you: a minor under 44.2 on the degree of violence, and a major plus an automatic game misconduct under 44.3 for reckless endangerment.	As IIHF — the In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 48, the carve-out included. Below adult, majors bite harder still: see UK and England Rules. The In-House Rules amend neither Rule 48 nor Rule 44, so the carve-out and the 44.1 crouching clause are both yours.	Minor + misconduct or major + game misconduct (Rule 620(a)); the major and game misconduct are compulsory for reckless endangerment and for contact that is merely careless (620(b)); match penalty available (620(c)). No head-down or ducking exception was found in USA Hockey's Playing Rules — USA Hockey Rule 620's Note puts the onus on the checker to avoid endangering a vulnerable or defenseless opponent	Assume ejection. Both books the column rests on allow it, and Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 opens with a bar on any legal contact to the head, face or neck. *But Hockey Canada carves out ducking — the checker's* amnesty in junior and senior divisions only, while Rule 8.7's prohibition on crouching carries no division scope: Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 7.7(a) gives no Head Contact penalty against a checker whose otherwise legal check hits the head of a player who ducks to avoid a check, and lets the referee give that player a Clipping Minor (Hockey Canada Rule 8.7(a), rising to a mandatory major plus game misconduct under 8.7(b) if the duck injures the checker — or at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence with nobody hurt — and a mandatory match penalty under 8.7(c) for an attempt to injure as well as a deliberate one; the prohibition itself is in 8.7's preamble). And the crouching prohibition is not Hockey Canada's alone — the IIHF cell in this row carries a narrower one at 44.1, quoted there. Hockey Canada excepts a player vulnerable as the result of a legitimate hockey play — shooting, making or receiving a pass — and confines the checker's amnesty** to junior and senior, so a checker in minor or female hockey has none — but Rule 8.7's prohibition on the ducker is not confined and reaches every division
Checking from behind	No minor exists (Rule 43.2); 43.3 is a major, and 43.5 makes a game misconduct mandatory "anytime a major penalty is applied". Match penalty for intent to injure (43.4)	No minor either (Rule 43.2); 43.3 gives a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment	As IIHF — the In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 43. Section 6 (Physical Fouls), where such an amendment would sit, contains only the fighting provision, and no rule numbered 43 appears anywhere in the document. So a check from behind ends your game in Britain	The one book that lets you finish the game. Rule 608(a): a minor plus a misconduct, or a major plus a game misconduct — never a bare minor, but the lighter option leaves you on the bench. 608(b) makes the major and game misconduct compulsory for reckless endangerment, or for causing an opponent to go head first into the boards or goal frame; 608(c) reaches a match penalty. *Its Casebook* narrows the lighter option further than 608(b) does — Rule 608, Situation 1 requires the minor plus misconduct for an open-ice push and a low-force pinch against the boards, and requires the major plus game misconduct or the match penalty where a player forcefully checks an opponent standing along the boards with their back toward the middle of the ice, and wherever the check recklessly endangers, regardless of whether board contact is made. For the hit this table is about, assume you are ejected here too**	Follows the book adopted — and Hockey Canada is not the soft option either: Rule 7.5(a) assesses a minor plus a game misconduct, 7.5(c) makes a match penalty mandatory where the player could not protect or defend themselves, and 7.5(e) makes the game misconduct compulsory whenever a minor or major penalty is assessed. Assume you are ejected
High-sticking	Double minor for injury (60.3); no major tier; match penalty where a player "attempts to or deliberately injures" with a high stick (60.4). Waist floor is in 60.1 and 60.3 but not 60.2, whose "Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited" matches both IIHF editions' — do not plan a stick on a crouching opponent on the strength of the floor	Major + automatic game misconduct available where the high stick "recklessly endangers" (60.4). The waist floor depends on which edition your league is on — the 2026/27 book has it at 60.1 and 60.3 in the NHL's words; the 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book has it at neither, so under that one the line is the opponent's shoulders where they actually are. Not outright, though — 60.1 in both editions permits "'accidental contact' on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a 'face-off'". Under both, 60.2 carries no floor	Amended in one respect. The In-House Rules (Section 8) remove the 60.3 on-ice video review — "On-ice video review is not available in EIH or SIHA competition" — so the call on the ice stands. ⚠️ The Elite League does not remove it: its Casebook keeps video review (Rule 37) and amends nothing in Rule 60. Otherwise as IIHF	Minor baseline (621(a)); major + game misconduct mandatory for reckless endangerment (621(b)); match penalty available (621(c)). ⚠️ The playing rule and the Casebook disagree on whether contact is needed. 621's Note requires the stick above the normal height of the opponent's shoulders "and makes contact with the opponent"; Casebook Rule 621, Situation 2 answers "No." to whether contact must occur, adds that "[i]t is not a requirement that a stick make contact above shoulder height for high sticking to be called", and requires the call "[w]henever a player raises their stick above their shoulders in an attempt to intimidate an opponent or is careless in their actions". Assume the wider of the two	Assume a major and a game misconduct — and a match penalty if the opponent you hit could not protect himself, or the referee reads the injury as deliberate — not the NHL's double minor. Which book binds you depends on the one your league adopts, and Hockey Canada's playing rules never state which division adult recreational hockey sits in — an equipment note in passing implies Senior registration, but no playing rule says it. If you are registered Senior, the rule you are actually exposed to is Hockey Canada 7.7 – Head Contact – Junior/Senior, whose preamble says that "in Junior and Senior divisions, this rule supersedes any other rules regarding contact to the head" bar fighting. Its floor is not a bare minor — 7.7(a) is a minor plus a misconduct, made mandatory by 7.7(d), *though Interpretation 2 to 7.7(a) sends minimal-violence head contact back out to "Roughing, High-Sticking, etc.", where a bare minor is the floor* — and 7.7(b) reaches a major plus a game misconduct for a high degree of violence, for a cross-check above the shoulders "whether or not injury results", and where the foul drives your opponent's head into the glass, ice or boards and injures it; 7.7(c) is the match penalty. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 2 narrows that cross-check limb, though — it says the rule is "not intended to penalize players who make minimal, accidental contact" but those who "make a deliberate cross-checking action and strike an opponent in the head or neck". It is headed to 7.6(b), the minor-and-female rule, and 7.7 has no equivalent interpretation; it is read across here because 7.6(b) and 7.7(b) carry that cross-check sentence in identical words. Hockey Canada's high-sticking rule 9.5 cannot itself go above a minor, or a discretionary double minor for an accidental high stick of minimal violence that injures: 9.5(b) and 9.5(c) bar a major and a match penalty and route each to 7.7; 9.5(d) and 9.5(e) bar a misconduct and a game misconduct outright, routing nothing anywhere, and 7.7(d) supplies the misconduct instead. 9.5's preamble also lets a penalty be assessed "regardless of whether or not contact occurs", though 9.5(a) — the only clause that assesses one — requires contact, so the text does not settle whether the carry alone can do it; assume it can. In minor and female hockey the route is Rule 7.6 instead, and the full routing is in the stick-fouls list above
Broken stick: what a skater does with it	Drop it, and you may play on without one (Rule 10.3) — a minor if you keep hold of it and participate. A replacement may be handed over from your bench or by a teammate on the ice, or you may pick an unbroken stick up off the ice	The same drop rule (Rule 10.3), word for word in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions — but its throwing bar is fuller than the NHL's, penalising a player who "throw, toss, slide or shoot a stick to a teammate (skater) on the ice" where the NHL's list is "throws or shoots" alone	Amended, and new for 2026-27. The In-House Rules add their own Rule 10.3, which the 2025-26 edition did not have: "Skating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted under IHUK In-House Rules. A player whose stick is broken must drop their stick immediately. Failure to do so will incur a 2min penalty for illegal equipment". No proximity test and no out-of-play test — it reaches the act "anywhere on the ice." It is headed "Broken Stick: Player" and writes no goalkeeper counterpart, so on the document's own silence-is-adoption terms IIHF Rule 10.4 still governs a British goalie. ⚠️ None of this reaches the Elite League — the EIHL Casebook amends Rule 10 only for stick measurement (10.5, and 10.6/10.7 marked "N/A") and writes no broken-stick rule, so IIHF 10.3 governs there	Drop it — but a short carry to the bench is allowed on conditions. Rule 605(a); Casebook Rule 605 Situation 1 permits it "only if they are in the immediate vicinity of the bench, is completely out of the play and does so immediately upon breaking the stick", and Situation 3 withdraws it where the player must "go a great distance and/or in the proximity of opposing players". Rule 605(b) allows a replacement "only … from the player's bench or from a teammate on the ice" — not off the ice	Follows the book adopted. Hockey Canada is the flat version — Rule 3.2(a), "A player whose stick has been broken must drop all pieces of the broken stick to the ice immediately", penalised under Rule 10.6 – Illegal Equipment
Fighting	5-minute major, not an automatic ejection for a willing pair; extra minor + misconduct for the instigator, and the aggressor is ejected — major plus game misconduct (Rules 46, 46.2)	Penalised hard, and 46.1 was rewritten between the editions. Under the 2026/27 book a major plus an automatic game misconduct is the standard penalty for any player "willing to fight and/or actively participat[ing] in a fight" — not just for persisting; under the 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book a willing combatant "shall be penalized accordingly by the Referee(s) and may be ejected from the game", with the automatic game misconduct reserved for persisting. "'Fighting' is not part of international ice hockey's DNA" in both (Rule 46.1). Assume you are gone either way	Amended. "Fighting shall be penalised with a 5-minute Major Penalty" in NIHL (all leagues), SNL and BUIHA Varsity; in NIHL, NIHL1 and NIHL2 a fighting major in the last 5 minutes of regulation or overtime "will also carry an automatic Game Misconduct" (In-House Rules, Section 6). ⚠️ That is the plain willing fight only. Section 6 names no rule number, and the In-House introduction says "Unless otherwise stated, all rules will be enforced in line with the IIHF Rule Book" — so the rest of Rule 46 stands: instigator (46.3) and aggressor (46.4) add a major and an automatic game misconduct to a minor; sucker-punching (46.5) and fighting outside the periods (46.9) are a major plus an automatic game misconduct; fighting off the playing surface (46.11) adds a game misconduct "in addition to any other time penalties assessed, including the major penalty"; third man in (46.7) is a game misconduct "at the discretion of the Referee", except where one is already being imposed in the original altercation; and 46.1 itself lets the referee impose "at least" a major plus an automatic game misconduct on a player who persists after being ordered to stop or who resists a linesperson. Assume you are gone. Two things about the five-minute treatment are readings rather than things Section 6 says: that it reaches a plain willing fight and nothing else, and that an In-House penalty displaces 20.4's automatic game misconduct for a Table 6 entry. Section 6 states neither. It also binds only NIHL, SNL and BUIHA Varsity. Anywhere else in British hockey 46.1 is a Table 6 entry — major plus automatic game misconduct — and 46.1 lets the referee eject a willing combatant in any case. In junior hockey any major adds a game misconduct. Rule 28 supplementary discipline sits above all of it. ⚠️ The Elite League is a different scheme again, and reads lighter at the first offence and heavier after it. EIHL Casebook 46.1: "Willing combatants will be penalised with at least a Major Penalty ('Fighting'). Note for their 2nd Major Penalty an Automatic Game misconduct will be assessed." Its instigator is 2 + 5 + 10, rising to 2 + 5 + 20 in the last five minutes of regulation or any time in overtime, or on a second instigation in the same game; instigator and aggressor is 2 + 5 + 10 + 20; a fighting major "after the original altercation has started" carries a game misconduct; and removing or losing your jersey adds 2 + a game misconduct. A 10th fighting major in an EIHL regular season is an automatic one-game suspension, a 14th two games for each further major	Major + game misconduct; second fighting major with the same team in a season = 3-game suspension (Rule 615(f))	Ejection and suspension, nearly always
When majors and misconducts eject you	A first major can do it, and the book flags its own tension about when. 20.4's second sentence attaches no condition to a Table 5 major; the individual rules do. Of Table 5's thirteen non-fighting rows it is unconditional for seven — checking from behind 43.5, head-butting 47.5, kneeing 50.5, butt-ending 58.5, cross-checking 59.5, slashing 61.5, spearing 62.5 — and injury-conditional for six: face or head at boarding 41.5, charging 42.5, elbowing 45.5; any injury at clipping 44.5, hooking 55.4, interference 56.5. Fighting's six rows carry it unconditionally too — thirteen non-fighting plus six is the nineteen used elsewhere in this document. No major at all for high-sticking, slew-footing or an illegal check to the head — all three are a match penalty there instead (60.4, 52.2, 48.5), and 52.2's is mandatory and unconditional — 60.4 and 48.5 both require an attempt to injure or a deliberate injury. Assume the harsher reading. Residually a third major (20.4). No second-misconduct trigger in Rule 22	A first major ends your game for any of the twenty infractions in Reference Table 6 — the 2025/26 book's number, merged into the 2026/27 edition's single Table 5 along with Tables 5 and 7 — checking from behind, clipping, illegal check to the head, high-sticking, cross-checking, slashing, hooking and slew-footing among them — and 20.4 makes that game misconduct unconditional, where the NHL's equivalent turns on injury for half its list. And Table 6 is not the whole of your first-major risk: Table 7 adds five more, each written as a single major-plus-game-misconduct act — boarding 41.4, charging 42.4, elbowing 45.4, interference 56.5 and tripping 57.4. Table 7's heading rests the game misconduct on the referee's judgement, so this is not beyond doubt; play as though the ejection follows the major. Residually a second major or a second misconduct in the same game (20.4, 22.1); the NHL waits for a third major and has no second-misconduct trigger at all. No face-or-head-injury clause	⚠️ In women's hockey the In-House Rules do amend this, and in the harshest direction: every major is an ejection. Section 11, Rule 101 reads "Any player who commits a foul that is assessed a Major Penalty will, in all cases, also receive an additional Game Misconduct Penalty and be ejected from the game" — so no Reference Table is consulted and the IIHF's twenty do not bound it. Section 11 puts a woman in the adult category from her 14th birthday (Rule 100.1). Elsewhere, As IIHF at adult level — the In-House Rules amend neither Rule 20 nor Rule 22 on their own triggers — but they reach the outcome by other routes: fighting is a five-minute major in NIHL (all leagues), SNL and BUIHA Varsity, with the automatic game misconduct attaching in NIHL, NIHL1 and NIHL2 only in the last five minutes of regulation or in overtime; a second neck-guard violation escalates to a game misconduct; a second facial-protection misconduct does the same. And the equipment section is a route by arithmetic — a missing neck guard is an immediate 10-minute misconduct with no warning, while a tucked jersey, an uncovered elbow pad and a chin-strap gap are each a warning first and a 10-minute misconduct on the repeat — and IIHF 22.1 ejects you on the second misconduct of any kind in the same game, with no foul committed against anybody. Below adult they are stricter: see UK and England Rules. ⚠️ In the Elite League, fix a neck guard the first time you are warned — EIHL Casebook 9.12 imposes a minor "after warning by the Referee" rather than an immediate misconduct, and 9.5, which lists "neck laceration protection not being properly worn" among its examples, takes a player who refuses the change to a "Delay of Game" minor, a misconduct if they return to the ice without making it, and a game misconduct the third time. Its fighting rule is the other route there: 46.1 attaches "an Automatic Game misconduct" to a "2nd Major Penalty"	Any game misconduct already costs the team's next game automatically (Rule 404(b)). A second major to the same player in a game brings one plus "suspended for their team's next two games" (403(b)); a second misconduct becomes a game misconduct (404(a)); season-long accumulation is separate (411)	Varies — read your league's sheet. ⚠️ In the two books adult rec hockey most often runs on, a major simply ends your night: CARHA Rule 30(a) rules you off "for the remainder of the game", excepting only, for a skater, an accidental high stick that injures nobody, with at least a one-game suspension under 32(d) for every major other than an accidental high stick; Hockey Canada Rule 4.4 writes no exception at all
Offside review	Coach's Challenge (Rule 38.2(a)); failed challenge = 2:00 minor, further failures 4:00	Coach's Challenge available (Rule 83.5 → Rule 38); same 2:00 / 4:00 escalation (Rule 38.7)	Amended — none at all in EIH or SIHA competition. The In-House Rules bar both video review and a Coach's Challenge "in EIH or SIHA competition" (Rules 37, 38), so the referee's call stands. ⚠️ The Elite League keeps both — EIHL Casebook 37.1 (review "in the arena or remotely from the EIHL Situation Room") and 38.5 (a challenge "at any time throughout the game Regulation time or at any time during Overtime")	None — no video review in the playing rules	Usually none. One published rec book has none at all: CARHA Hockey's writes no video review and no coach's challenge, and settles a disputed goal on the ice — the Referee decides "after having consulted with the other Referee and the Goal Judge involved" (CARHA Rule 41(e))
Airborne trail skate at the blue line	Onside (Rule 83.1) — vertical plane test	Onside (Rule 83.1) — same test	As IIHF — onside; drag or lift, either works	Offside (Rule 630(a)) — requires skate contact with the Neutral Zone or the blue line	Follows whichever book the league adopts — assume contact is required unless told otherwise. Hockey Canada Rule 6.11 is the same as USA Hockey — skate contact required. CARHA Rule 72(c) Note 1 settles it neither way: it borrows "own side" and never defines it, and "plane" appears nowhere in the book
Faceoff violation	Centre ejected from the draw (Rules 76.6, 76.7); second violation by the same team on the same draw is a bench minor; winning the draw with your skates is legal	Centre removed — but only since the 2026/27 edition. Rule 76.6 has the encroaching team's draw-taker ejected from the face-off circle; 76.3 and 76.4 have the offending centre replaced rather than warned. Second violation still a bench minor (76.7). Winning the draw with your skates is itself a violation (Rule 76.3(VI)) — in both editions. The 2025/26 book ejected nobody: every first violation was a warning to the team, on every draw	Amended, and the amendment settles it — your centre goes. The In-House Rules 2026-27 add a Rule 76 requiring the linesperson to replace the centre for all violations except after an icing — so the answer no longer turns on which IIHF edition your league runs. Winning the draw with your skates is itself a violation under both editions, and IHUK does not amend 76.3, so it costs you the centre too — take "kick it back" out of your repertoire. Second violation is still a bench minor (IIHF 76.7, unamended). ⚠️ None of this reaches the Elite League — the EIHL Casebook writes no Rule 76 at all, so IIHF Rule 76 governs there unamended, stick order included. ⚠️ The stick order is gone: either centre may now put their stick down first, with the whole of their stick blades (not toe or heel) required in the white	Centre ejected if a teammate is out of position (Rule 613(d)); second violation is a minor to the player who committed it, not a bench minor. Note also that *the attacking* player puts his stick down first** at every spot except centre ice (Rule 613(a)) — the reverse of the NHL	Often not called at all, or simply re-dropped (varies — check)
Tagging up on a delayed offside	Yes	Yes	As IIHF in the adult and full-ice junior game — the In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 83. ⚠️ Not at every age, though. The IHUK Junior Rules of Competition, Appendix D, run U12 offside with no stoppage at all — "Play does not stop", the official calls the attacking team out, and "Failure to retreat quickly = delay of game penalty" — so there is no delayed offside to tag up on; and U10 is played cross-ice or half-ice, where the question does not arise	Only at Youth 15-Only+, Girls 16U+, HS and Adult (Rule 630(d)) — below that, offside is immediate	Usually yes. Hockey Canada Rule 6.11 is unscoped — no category or division clause at all, where the same book scopes its icing rule in terms (Rule 6.7(e), "In categories of U18AAA, Junior, and at the option of the Member in Senior"). So a delayed offside tags up the same way in every Hockey Canada division, and the limit in the USA Hockey column beside it is USA Hockey's alone
Overtime	Regular season: 5 min, 3-on-3, then 3-round shootout. Playoffs: unlimited 20-min sudden-death periods at even strength — Rule 84.5 states the periods, the first intermission and the change of ends, but no on-ice strength at all, so the even strength is an inference from its silence	Prelim: 5 min 3-on-3 + 5-shooter shootout. Playoff, relegation, classification and bronze: up to 10 min 3-on-3 + shootout (84.5 names all four). Gold medal of a top-category championship: unlimited 3-on-3 sudden-death periods, no length stated in the rule	Amended, and often absent. Played "only … in NIHL fixtures and in SNL fixtures where specifically provided for in competition regulations" (Rule 84). NIHL League and group-stage playoffs: 5 min 3-on-3 then a 3-shooter GWS. Playoff Final Weekend splits: semi-final — one 20-min 5-on-5 period, then the same 3-shooter GWS; final — successive 20-min 5-on-5 sudden death ("golden goal"), no GWS (Appendix 1). ⚠️ The Elite League plays overtime in everything, and its shootout is longer: EIHL Casebook 84.1 gives a 5-minute 3-on-3 in the regular season and Challenge Cup group stage, 20-minute 5-on-5 periods in elimination games, and 84.4 sets a shootout of "Five (5) Shooters" before sudden death — not three	Recommended 10-min sudden-victory period after a 5-min rest; shootout optional; affiliates may set their own (Rule 638)	Varies, and one published book answers it twice. CARHA league play: the tie stands, points shared (Rule 85(a)), overtime left to "league or tournament regulations". CARHA's own tournaments (Section Seven): round robin 5-min 4-on-4 sudden victory, still tied = 1 point each; semi-final and final 5-min 5-on-5 sudden victory, then a best-of-3 shootout, then sudden death. No 3-on-3 anywhere in that book. Other leagues set their own — read the sheet
Period length	3 × 20 min, stop time; 18-min intermissions	3 × 20 min; 15-min intermissions	Adult only — below that the competition sets it. The In-House Rules carry no amendment to Rule 77, and the NIHL RoC prints "3 x 20 minute periods". ⚠️ The junior and women’s formats are shorter, and one of them is running-clock: the Junior RoC’s format table gives U12 "3 x 18-minute periods" with a "running clock" — half the answer, since Appendix D sets it by line count, "3-line format – three periods of 18 minutes" against "4-line format – three periods of 20 minutes", both running — U14 "3 x 15-minute periods", and U16 and U19s "3 x 15 or 3 x 20-minute periods"; the WNIHL RoC’s format table gives U16 "3 x 15 minute periods" against "3 x 20 minute periods" for senior WNIHL, and its prose adds that "All WNIHL league games must be played over 3 x 20-minute periods" with 3 × 15 available only by permission from IHUK; U10 is a cross-ice jamboree. Read your own competition’s Rules of Competition	Max 3 × 20 min; 15-min intermissions; minor penalty times pro-rated for shorter periods (Rule 402), Adults always 2:00 — majors, misconducts and match penalties only where an affiliate has chosen to reduce them (Notes to Rules 403, 404, 405), and never for Adults	Often shorter and often running clock; curfews common

The short version, for anyone who cannot see that table. It is a wide comparison, and on a small screen you will only ever have a column or two of it in front of you at once. You lose less than that suggests: every row in it is also set out in words earlier on this page, in the section that owns the rule — the trapezoid and the goalie's centre-red-line minor in section 7; the icing rows in section 3; the line-change, timeout, overtime and period-length rows in section 1; offside, tagging up and video review in section 2; the penalty rows — body checking, head contact, checking from behind, high-sticking, fighting, broken sticks and when a major ends your game — in section 4; and the face-off row in section 8. Some cells are the exception, and they are in the table alone: USA Hockey's and CARHA Hockey's positions on video review, USA Hockey's season-long suspension for a second fighting major, USA Hockey's face-off-violation rules, which Faceoffs carries in full, and the terms of two Elite League departures — its fighting scheme and its overtime format, which the table alone sets out. The other four that note names are in words elsewhere: its video review in section 2, its face-off answer and its broken-stick answer in section 8 and Broken sticks, and its neck-guard escalation in Equipment. Otherwise what the table adds is the four books set against each other side by side, not the content.

Two USA Hockey consequences have no section of their own on this page, so they are set out here as well as in that table, and both are about penalties accumulating rather than about a single call. A second major to the same player in one game brings a game misconduct and, in the rule's own words, being "suspended for their team's next two games" (Rule 403(b)), and 403(b) adds that this "is in addition to any other required suspensions incurred during the same incident." ⚠️ Two rule numbers carry that same two-game figure, and neither is wrong — 403(b) states it, and 404(b), the game misconduct rule, reaches it from the other side: a game misconduct costs the team's next game, "except that when such penalty is imposed under Rule 403(b) (Second Major in Game) there shall be a minimum two-game suspension." Only 404(b) writes the word minimum, so two games is the floor. A second fighting major with the same team in one season brings a three-game suspension, and a third in the same season means being "suspended until a hearing is conducted by the proper authorities" (Rule 615(f), routing to Rule 410 Supplementary Discipline). Both sit on top of the counts under When penalties add up — USA Hockey's fourth penalty of any kind in one game, and its season-long ladder over majors — though fighting rides its own ladder rather than that one: Rule 411's seventeen-rule list of aggressive infractions does not include fighting, and 411's own Note says so, pointing to 615(f) instead.

A note on the rec column: unlike the other four, it is not one book. There is no single governing document for rec hockey, and the column describes what is common across leagues that mostly adopt USA Hockey or Hockey Canada rules with local amendments. Where a cell in it says "usually", "often", "varies" or "nearly always", that is a statement about how leagues tend to write their own rules and not a rule itself — how many leagues fall either side of it is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it. Where a cell instead names a book and a rule number, that part is checkable and is cited.

A note on the Home Countries column: unlike the rec column, it is a book — two, in fact, and both are published. Read the IIHF Rule Book for the game and the In-House Rules for the amendments; neither works without the other. The Home Countries comparison covers only the amendments that touch the rules compared here, and it is deliberately short, because the In-House Rules are short. The amendments that will catch you out first are not in this table at all — neck protection, facial protection, helmet fit, rink size and the junior and women's age categories. UK and England Rules covers all of them, and Equipment and Rink Map carry the equipment and geometry consequences. ⚠️ Two of those can end your British game without your having fouled anybody, so read this as a penalty and not as kit advice. Under the In-House Rules 2026-27 a missing neck laceration protector draws "an immediate 10-minute Misconduct Penalty" with no warning (Rule 9.12), and a second one "automatically escalates to a Game Misconduct"; a jersey tucked into your shorts, a jersey not covering your elbow pads (Rule 9.3) and a chin-strap gap over 2.5 cm (Rule 9.8) are each a warning first and a 10-minute misconduct on the repeat — and IIHF Rule 22.1 then ejects you on a second misconduct of any kind in the same game, so two pieces of kit are enough. One further caution: the In-House Rules are revised in-season and IHUK "may also issue Rule Bulletins from time to time", so check for a later revision before relying on a detail.

The British face-off answer on this page is written to the 2026-27 edition, Revision 1, published 25 July 2026, which added a Rule 76 the season before did not have — and so is the British broken-stick answer, from the Rule 10.3 the same edition added. The British amendments this page carries over from the previous season were re-checked against that edition and are unchanged — video review and the Coach's Challenge (Rules 37, 38), goaltender interference (69.1), fighting (Section 6, still headed "Applicable Leagues: NIHL (all leagues), SNL, and BUIHA Varsity") and overtime (Rule 84 with Appendix 1) — and it still amends neither Rule 81 nor Rule 83, so the In-House Rules leave icing, off-side and tagging up exactly as the IIHF book writes them. The junior and women's age categories (Rules 100.1, 200, 201) were not re-compared, so read those out of the current In-House Rules yourself rather than from anything here.

Published rec rulebooks do exist and can be read — "no single book" is not the same as "no book at all". CARHA Hockey — the Canadian Adult Recreational Hockey Association — publishes a full standalone Official Rule Book, which governs CARHA-affiliated leagues and is not a general rec-hockey standard. How much Canadian adult hockey runs on it is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it. Where it does apply it bears out most of the column:

No trapezoid — and that is not the same as no restriction. Neither "trapezoid" nor "restricted area" appears anywhere in the book, and nothing in it limits where the goalkeeper may play the puck. What it does limit is where they may freeze it: Rule 58(b) assesses a minor to a goalkeeper who "deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into their body, or holds or places the puck against any part of the goal or boards when the puck is behind the goal line and the goalkeeper's body is entirely outside the boundaries of the goal crease area" — so a CARHA goalie may fetch a puck behind their own goal line but may not smother it out there, which is the same trade USA Hockey makes at the first of Rule 614(c)’s four triggers. ⚠️ Neither book stops at one rule, so do not treat either as the whole answer: USA Hockey reaches an unpressured freeze anywhere on the ice through 610(a), 610(b), 618(c) (which wants "a warning by the Referee" first) and 632(b) (which writes no deliberateness condition at all), and CARHA reaches it through Rule 61(b) — a minor for a goalkeeper who "deliberately holds the puck and in the opinion of the Referee, is causing an unnecessary stoppage of play", wherever they are — while its Rule 74(b) makes it a minor for "any player" — and its Glossary provides that "[e]xcept where special rules apply, the goalkeeper is to be considered as one of the players" — who deliberately holds the puck against the boards or any part of the goal "in any manner, unless they are being checked by an opponent", with no location condition at all.
Automatic icing (Rule 65(a)) — play stops when the puck crosses the goal line, and "any contact with the puck over the centre red line, with the puck continuing down over the goal line nullifies 'icing' the puck." Note also that "some CARHA Hockey Leagues will use the blue lines instead of the red line to divide the ice" for icing purposes. That sentence is printed unlabelled inside Rule 65 itself, between (a) and (b); Rule 65(b) and Rule 65(c) are the clauses that say what changes when a league does it. (b) moves the nullification line from the red line to a blue one — "any contact with the puck over the defensive teams blue line WILL NOT be called icing" — and (c) makes the offence a shot "from BEHIND THE DEFENSIVE TEAMS BLUE LINE", rather than from your own half, beyond the opposing goal line. The book never says whose blue line "the defensive team's" is — the shooter's own or the one the other team defends — and the two readings put the line a whole zone apart, so ask your league where its line is. It is a variation with no professional equivalent.
A team below the opposing team's numerical strength cannot be called for icing (Rule 65(d)) — "'Icing the puck' shall not be called if a team is below the numerical strength of the opposing team at the instant the puck is shot." There is no classification limit on it and no empty-penalty-bench carve-out, and Rule 65(a) writes the same condition into the offence itself, which reaches only a player "of a team, equal or superior in numerical strength to the opposing team". The limit that bites on the ice is Note 2 to 65(a): "A team shall not be considered below the numerical strength of its opponent by reason of a penalized player remaining in the penalty box after their penalty has expired."
Body contact is itself the penalty (Rule 49(a)): a minor or major "to any player who intentionally bodies, pushes, shoves, stands in front of an opponent for the purpose of making contact, and/or does not avert body contact with an opponent" — and the same clause makes the major mandatory where "injury results from intentional body contact" — and either way the major ejects you, because Rule 30(a) attaches a game misconduct to every CARHA major except an accidental high stick that injures nobody. You do not need to hit anybody. And a foul that puts an opponent into the boards costs double: Rule 49(b) turns its minor into a double minor, and that counts as two of the three penalties that eject you (Rule 32(a)). ⚠️ But do not stop at 49(a), because 49(c) is the floor under it: "Where, in the opinion of the Referee, accidental contact has taken place, no penalty shall be assessed." So contact you neither intended nor could have avoided is no penalty at all, and 49(a)'s last limb — "does not avert body contact" — is a duty to get out of the way rather than a bar on being touched. ⚠️ That last reading is the clause's grammar and not something the book says: "intentionally" governs the three limbs before it and not the fourth, and CARHA never glosses it. Rule 49(d) then adds a minor or major for deliberate contact after the whistle — and that major ejects you too.
Face-off violations are written in, and they cost you the draw. This is the one place where the column does not bear out: "often not called at all" is a remark about how the draw is officiated, not about what a rec book says. Rule 57(a) provides that if a player other than the one taking the draw "moves offside, makes physical contact with an opponent, or encroaches on the face-off circle prior to the dropping of the puck, then the offending team's player taking the face-off shall be ejected from the face-off." Rule 57(d) then lets the referee assess a minor for "face-off violation" on a team committing a second violation of (a) in the same face-off.
Fighting means the dressing room. The instigator or aggressor gets a match penalty (Rule 59(a)), and a match penalty means "ordered to the dressing room immediately for the balance of the game" plus no further games until the case is dealt with by the Chairman (Rule 34(a)).
Two twenty-minute periods, not three (Rule 84(a)), with a 10-minute intermission — though Section Seven item 21 hands period length back to "the local committee or teams" for league and exhibition games, which is exactly the kind of local variation the column is warning you about. The mercy rule is in the playing rules themselves, at Rule 84(f) — running time at a five-goal spread with 10 minutes left, with a minor stretched to three minutes, a major or match penalty to seven and a misconduct to twelve, to compensate — and Section Seven, which is the tournament section, repeats it at item 16.
A high stick that contacts an opponent above the shoulders is a major, and injury is irrelevant. Rule 62(b): “A player who accidentally or intentionally contacts an opponent above the normal height of the opponent’s shoulders with a high stick shall be assessed a Major penalty, whether or not injury results.” ⚠️ Rule 62 writes no minor rung for contact above the shoulders, and Rule 50 offers no route back down to one — CARHA’s head-contact rule reaches contact made with “any part of the player’s body or equipment other than a stick”, and the Note opening it sends the stick case straight back: “If a stick is used on contact this infraction falls under Rule 62 – High Sticks.” The minor that Rule 62 does write, at 62(a), is a different act altogether — checking or intimidating an opponent “while carrying their stick above the waist height of their opponent”, which needs no contact at all. The Note to 62(b) adds a game misconduct where the high stick was intentional, or where an accidental one injures; 62(c) is a match penalty for deliberately attempting to injure or deliberately injuring. CARHA writes no windup or follow-through carve-out either — searched across the book by concept, its only “wind up” is the fifteen-inch figure in the slap-shot definition — where the NHL and IIHF books carry one. So of the five books read for this document, CARHA sets the highest floor for a high stick: the major is where its rule starts, not a tier the referee reaches for. That is CARHA-affiliated adult hockey and nothing else — it is not a rec-hockey standard and it is not evidence about your league.
The slap shot is banned outright (Rule 79(a)) — a minor, or a major if an opponent is injured, and in CARHA that major ejects you (Rule 30(a)). The book defines it as bringing the stick back "more than fifteen inches either on or off the ice." ⚠️ “Nothing like this in the other books” would be too strong, though — USA Hockey bans the slap shot too, in one discipline. Its Disabled Hockey section provides that “Slap Shots are prohibited in Blind Hockey”, caps the stick during the act of shooting at “parallel with their hip at maximum”, and assesses a minor. The NHL, IIHF and Hockey Canada books carry no slap-shot rule at all — the phrase returns zero hits from each, counted on text flattened for hyphenated line breaks. So what is unusual about CARHA’s ban is that it reaches all of a league’s play, not that the rule exists. CARHA also writes a clause none of the other four has any counterpart to: 79(b) makes a fake slap shot a minor where it is used “for the purpose of intimidating an opposing player and/or goalkeeper”.

The ASHL (Canlan's Adult Safe Hockey League) also publishes a rulebook, but it works as an overlay rather than a replacement: it states that "the current rules issued by Hockey Canada (Canadian ASHL locations) and USA Hockey (USA-based ASHL locations) provides the foundation for game rules in the ASHL."

So the column is verifiable in outline, and CARHA is a fair representative. What it is still not is authoritative for your league: neither of those books governs you unless your league says it does. Treat the column as a prompt to go and read your own league's rules sheet.

So here is the question to ask, because "find out which book you are under" is only useful if you know what to ask for. A British reader has a straight answer for the rule book — the IIHF Rule Book plus the IHUK In-House Rules, both published, both named above, except in the Elite League, which the In-House Rules never name and which runs its own Casebook on top of the IIHF book — read here only for the provisions cited above. ⚠️ That is the rule book and not the whole of it: how long a period is and whether you may body check are set by your own competition's Rules of Competition, so ask for those too. An adult recreational player in North America has to ask, and the specific thing to ask is whether the league is CARHA-affiliated — alongside the other two worth asking: whether checking is permitted in your division, and which of USA Hockey or Hockey Canada the league otherwise adopts. ⚠️ Do not assume the answer is yes. CARHA Hockey's book governs CARHA-affiliated leagues and nothing else; many adult recreational leagues are not affiliated, and how many fall either side of that is a question about leagues rather than about books — this document has no count for it. But the answer changes what a shift costs you: everything named in this section — the automatic icing, the major-from-the-first-contact high stick, the outright slap-shot ban, body contact as the offence itself, checking from behind with no rung that leaves you on the ice — is either your rule or none of your business, and nothing on the ice will tell you which. Ask before your first shift, and ask for it in writing.

Common Mistakes

These are rules misconceptions players genuinely hold, and what each one costs.

"I have to be behind the blue line." No — one skate on or behind the plane keeps you onside, and the line is a foot wide. Coasting behind the line to be safe kills your entry. Drag a trail skate and enter at speed.
"High-sticking is a double minor." Keep the blade below his shoulders — follow the puck up with your eyes, not with your stick. That is the NHL's ceiling for injury (60.3). Everywhere else a high stick reaches a major and a game misconduct — IIHF 60.4, USA Hockey 621(b), which makes it mandatory for a reckless one, Hockey Canada via 7.7(b) or 7.6(b), with the match tier routed the same way to 7.7(c) or 7.6(c) — and even the NHL has a match penalty at 60.4 where the injury was deliberate or attempted. ⚠️ In one book read here the major is not a tier a high stick reaches — it is where the rule begins. CARHA Hockey Rule 62(b) assesses a major for contact above the opponent’s shoulders “whether or not injury results”, accidental and intentional alike, and writes no minor rung above the shoulders; the game misconduct follows when it was intentional, or when an accidental one injures. That binds CARHA-affiliated adult leagues and nobody else — check your own book rather than carrying this across. Hockey Canada reads further still: its 9.5 preamble lets a penalty be assessed "regardless of whether or not contact occurs" — although 9.5(a), the clause that assesses one, requires contact, so the book does not settle whether the carry alone is punishable. Assume it is. ⚠️ And "he was crouching, so it cannot be a high stick" is wrong in every book. That waist floor is in the NHL book and the IIHF 2026/27 one and nowhere else; it is measured at the struck player's waist, not yours (IIHF Situation Handbook 2026/27, Situation 60.13); and no book's 60.2 — the clause that actually imposes the minor — carries it at all.
"I never touched him, so it cannot be high-sticking." Keep the blade below your own shoulders in traffic and the question never arises. ⚠️ It can be high-sticking — and under USA Hockey the playing rule and the Casebook disagree about whether it can. USA Hockey Rule 621's Note requires that a player carry the stick above the normal height of the opponent's shoulders "and makes contact with the opponent", but its Casebook answers "No." to whether contact must occur at all, adds that "[i]t is not a requirement that a stick make contact above shoulder height for high sticking to be called", and requires the call "[w]henever a player raises their stick above their shoulders in an attempt to intimidate an opponent or is careless in their actions" (Rule 621, Situation 2). The IIHF 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book defines a high stick as one "carried above the height of the opponent's shoulders", with no contact element, where the 2026/27 edition makes it a contact test — but in both editions the minor and the double minor (60.2, 60.3) turn on contact. And Hockey Canada's 9.5 preamble says a high-sticking penalty "may be assessed regardless of whether or not contact occurs" — though 9.5(a), the only clause that assesses one, requires contact, so that text does not settle it either.
"My skate was in the air, so I was offside." Know which book you are in, and if you do not know, keep the blade down. Under the NHL, no — if the blade has not broken the vertical plane of the leading edge, you are onside (NHL Rule 83.1, which defines a "skate" as "the blade of the skate only"). ⚠️ The IIHF says that only in its 2026/27 book, which adopted the sentence. The 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book writes the same plane test but never defines "skate", so a raised boot across the plane with the blade still behind it is unsettled there — a trail skate held wholly back over the neutral zone is onside under either edition, but do not reach a toe across under the older one. Under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada, yes — Rule 630(a) requires skate contact with the neutral zone or the blue line, and Hockey Canada Rule 6.11 counts "only the player's skate(s) that are in physical contact with the ice surface", so the airborne skate is offside in both. The PWHL is a third plane book — its Rule 85.1 carries the NHL's "blade of the skate only" definition word for word, and the NHL's plane sentence with only the pronouns changed — and CARHA answers neither way, its Rule 72(c) Note 1 giving the on-side sentence with no plane definition and the word "plane" appearing nowhere in the book. So of the six books checked on this rule, three say onside, two say offside and one is silent.
"During a delayed offside I just can't touch the puck." Retreat to the line and do not chase, whichever book you are under — touching the puck is not the only thing that stops play, and this one costs possession every game. Under the NHL, the IIHF and the PWHL (Rules 83.3 and 85.3), forcing the defending puck carrier deeper into his own zone or being about to make contact with him also stops play. ⚠️ Do not close on the carrier expecting a whistle to arrive before you do under USA Hockey, Hockey Canada or CARHA Hockey, because he is not braced for you: their stop-play clauses (Rules 630(d), 6.11(b)(ii) and 72(e)(2)) write no contact trigger at all.
"We tagged up, so the goal counts." Treat the shot that caused the delayed offside as a dump-in, not a scoring chance: tag up, then go and win the puck back. The goal does not count if the puck was shot in and that same shot went in. Clearing the zone afterwards has no bearing (Rule 83.4) — and that is all four books. The NHL, the IIHF and Hockey Canada say so in their playing rules; USA Hockey says it in its Casebook, at Rule 630, Situation 41, which disallows the goal even where the attacking team has "nullified the delayed offside by clearing the zone prior to the puck entering the goal." Its Playing Rules alone do not settle it — Rule 630 writes no disallowed-goal provision and 617(b)(2) and 617(c)(8) point opposite ways — so it is the Casebook that closes it.
"Icing is a race to the dot." Race the puck, not the dot. The dot is only where the linesperson's decision is locked in, and a race too close to call at that point is icing — Rule 81.1 says in terms that "the determining factor is which player would first touch the puck, not which player would first reach the end zone face-off dots." Under USA Hockey's automatic icing there is no race at all.
"I got the puck over the red line with my skate, so no icing." Get the puck itself past the line and you are safe in all four books — in two of them it must be on your stick to count. Under the NHL and IIHF, "gaining the line" requires the puck to be on your stick when it contacts the centre red line (Rule 81.1). Under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada the question is put differently, because neither book uses the phrase or draws the stick-versus-skate distinction: the test is the point of last contact with the puck relative to the red line (USA Hockey Rule 624 Note; Hockey Canada Rule 6.7, Interpretation 5). Do not argue either wording in the other book's game.
"My blade snapped, so I can come off after our icing." Stay on, tell the official, and let them send you off if they will — and never send a replacement over the boards on the assumption. ⚠️ Coming off is only maybe, and only under the IIHF book. The NHL's substitution bar has three exceptions and a broken skate is not one of them (Rules 81.4, 82.1). The IIHF adds "a Player with a broken skate", but it adds it at Rule 81.4 only: Rule 82.1 restates the same icing bar with the other three and without it, the rulebook does not say which governs, and no Situation Handbook answer names a broken skate. ⚠️ One cuts against the exception without naming it, though: Situation 81.7 answers that "[o]nly time a line change is permitted is when a penalty is assessed which affects the on-ice strength of either team" — over-broad, because that drops the injured player and the pulled goalkeeper 81.4 also permits, but not encouraging. Under Hockey Canada it is not an exception either — Rule 6.7(d)(i)'s three carve-outs are "to replace a Goaltender that has been substituted for an extra attacker", "to replace an injured player", and "when a penalty or penalties have been assessed to either team", and that rule applies only in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option, in any case. And that is why a replacement must not go over the boards on the assumption: IIHF Rule 82.2(V) has the referee "send the Players who have attempted to change back to their Players' bench" and warn the coach that any subsequent violation "shall result in a bench minor penalty for 'delaying the game'". That warning is one per team per game and covers all three of the acts 82.2(V) names, so if your bench has already spent it on something else the attempt is a bench minor immediately — in the last two minutes and in overtime included, because 82.2(VIII) suspends only points (vi) and (vii). Under the NHL it may be a bench minor with no warning at all: Rule 82.3's first paragraph gives one to the visiting team for "any attempt… to make a change after the Referee's signal", which its own 82.2(v) contradicts.
"USA Hockey doesn't bar the change after an icing, so I can go over the boards whenever I like." You may change after your own icing under USA Hockey, and you may not change late — late is the part that is penalised. ⚠️ Under USA Hockey the icing itself is not what stops you — the change window is, and it closes at every stoppage. Rule 624 writes no substitution bar, so the icing itself costs you nothing; but Rule 204(a) gives the visiting team five seconds and the home team five and then shuts the window — "Once the line change procedure has been completed, no additional player substitutions shall be permitted until the face-off has been completed legally and play has resumed", bar a penalty that changes on-ice strength. A player sent over after that meets two provisions, at two tiers, each of which warns first. Rule 204(a)'s own second paragraph: "If there is any undue delay by either team in placing their lineup on the ice or changing players, the Referee shall warn the offending team. Any subsequent delay by the same team will result in a minor penalty for delay of game." And Rule 610(g): a bench minor "after warning by the Referee" to a team "that causes any delay by making additional substitutions or attempts to delay the game in any manner." USA Hockey's Casebook supplies the on-ice remedy, at Rule 613 Situation 15 — on a false face-off, either team attempting to change is ordered "back to the players' bench", which is what IIHF Rule 82.2(V) does too.
"I'll knock the net off — we get a whistle and I get a change." Never knock the net off to buy a rest. ⚠️ You get the whistle and you do not get the change. NHL and IIHF Rule 63.8 put the draw in your own end, give the other team the choice of dot, and provide that "[t]he offending team shall not be permitted to make any player substitutions prior to the face-off" — on three exceptions, none of which is being tired: a goalkeeper who had come off for an extra attacker, an injured player, or a penalty that changes on-ice strength. If the referee reads the displacement as deliberate rather than accidental it is a minor for delay of game as well. Hockey Canada writes the same bar at Rule 6.1(g), but only "[i]n categories of U18 AAA, Junior and at the option of the Member in Senior", and no counterpart was found in USA Hockey, whose Rule 610(d) stops play and penalises a deliberate displacement without attaching any substitution consequence.
"I'll hop off the ice to kill the delayed offside." That works — into your own bench. NHL and IIHF Rule 83.3 clear you "when both skates are off the ice and the Linesperson judges [you] to have left the playing surface", and both name "his players' bench". ⚠️ The wrong door is a bench minor in one book. USA Hockey Casebook Rule 630, Situation 12: "if the player jumped off the ice surface into any other part of the rink, and was substituted for, their team must be assessed a bench minor penalty for illegal substitution." And whichever door you use, your replacement is not free either — if he comes on in the attacking zone while the arm is still up, he has to clear as well.
"A cross-check to the chest that rides up is a two-minute hockey play." Control their stick instead of their body — a stick lift taken below their bottom hand, lifted up rather than sideways. Not under Hockey Canada, whose sentence carries no division scope at all, and not under CARHA Hockey. Hockey Canada's Rules 7.6(b) and 7.7(b) carry it word for word: "Any player who strikes an opponent above the normal height of their shoulders with a cross-check will be penalized with a Major penalty and a Game Misconduct penalty, whether or not injury results", and its Interpretation 2 to 9.2(b) makes that "must". In minor and female hockey it is not a catch-all for every stick that drifts high — Interpretation 2 to 7.6(b) says the rule is "not intended to penalize players who make minimal, accidental contact with an opponent's head with their stick" but those who "make a deliberate cross-checking action and strike an opponent in the head or neck." But that takes away the major, not the penalty: 7.6(a) still gives a minor for accidental head contact in minor and female hockey, and in those same divisions 4.8(b)(ii) ejects a player assessed "three Minor or double Minor penalties" for head contact in one game. Junior and Senior carry the sentence at 7.7(b) with no such interpretation. ⚠️ CARHA Hockey's Rule 54(b) carries the same sentence with no such narrowing, and its 54(c) makes any cross-check that injures a major and a game misconduct. ⚠️ Nor is it two minutes under USA Hockey once the stick reaches the head: its Casebook calls stick contact to the head during a check Head Contact (Rule 621, Situation 1), which starts at a minor plus a misconduct and is a mandatory major plus a game misconduct when careless (620(a), 620(b)). And in the NHL and the IIHF the referee can go past the minor on the same play, to a major and a game misconduct (NHL 59.3 and 59.5, IIHF 59.3). Below the shoulders, Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 to 9.2(a) turns the referee's question to force rather than to whether contact happened — "If a pushing motion is used, a penalty may not be necessary. However, a striking motion must be penalized" — but a push is still a cross-check under that book's own definition, and still the referee's to call. No other book read for this corpus draws that pushing-versus-striking line. And lift; do not chop: USA Hockey's Standard of Play singles out "hard slashes to the upper portion of the stick (just below the hands) of an opponent, with no attempt to legally play the puck" for strict enforcement.
"It was only stick-on-stick, so it cannot be hooking." Stick on the puck, not on his stick. It can be hooking under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada, and CARHA's Rule 64 writes no carve-out at all — and the carve-out you are thinking of is narrower than you think even in the three books that write it. NHL 55.1, IIHF 55.1 and PWHL 56.1 exempt stick-to-stick contact only "when a player is checking another", so it is a carve-out for a check, not a general licence. USA Hockey 623 and Hockey Canada 8.2 both name the opponent's stick as a hookable surface — "any part of an opponent's body or stick" — and the NHL and IIHF both carry a further limb at Rule 56.1 under which a player without body position who uses the stick "to impede or prevent his opponent from moving freely on the ice" — the NHL's wording, the IIHF's the same but for its pronouns and the quotation marks it puts round "body position", "freely" and "hooking" — gets a hooking penalty, with no tug at all. ⚠️ The tugging motion you have seen a referee make is the NHL's hooking signal (Rule 29.18). NHL Rule 55.1 asks only whether the stick was used "in a manner that enables a player to restrain an opponent", and the signal is not the test. "No tug, no hooking" is not safe in any book read here. USA Hockey's, Hockey Canada's and CARHA's definitions do name a "pulling or tugging" motion, but all three reach the opponent's stick as well as his body, and a CARHA stick that restrains without a tug is holding under Rule 63(a) — "with the hands, stick or in any other manner" — where a major is an ejection (30(a)).
"I got the puck first, so it is not a trip." Beating the man to the puck is the defence; beating him to it and then taking his feet is not. In the NHL and the IIHF that is false — it saves you the penalty shot, not the two minutes. NHL 57.3 and IIHF 24.8 both say that "if, in the opinion of the Referee", a player "makes contact with the puck first and subsequently trips the opponent in so doing, no penalty shot will be awarded, but a minor penalty for tripping shall be assessed." USA Hockey and Hockey Canada do give relief, on terms that are not the same claim as each other. USA Hockey's turns on the action, not on the puck: no penalty "under this rule" — Rule 639 only, so it shields nothing under the hooking or holding rules — where "in the opinion of the Referee, the player was clearly hook-checking or poke-checking the puck for the purpose of gaining possession." Reach the puck first by a skate, a body or a slide and that clause does nothing for you. Hockey Canada's does turn on the puck: its Interpretation 1 to 8.6(a) covers a player who "gains possession of the puck and, with the same action, trips the puck carrier", and its Interpretation 2 — the falling or sliding player who reaches the puck first — carries no referee-judgement qualifier at all. ⚠️ Neither book's relief reaches slew-footing — and Hockey Canada's does not reach a clip either, where USA Hockey's can, because its Rule 639 covers clipping and tripping together. ⚠️ And the relief that does run the NHL's and the IIHF's way is a different one, which those two books alone write: 57.1 in each — "Accidental trips which occur simultaneously with a completed play will not be penalized. Accidental trips occurring simultaneously with or after a stoppage of play will not be penalized" — with no equivalent in USA Hockey or Hockey Canada. Neither pair of books, then, is simply the harsher one.
"I can grab his stick as long as I let go." Block it with your body and do not close your fingers on it — and under USA Hockey, do not reach for the stick at all. Grabbing it to defend yourself and letting go at once is allowed in three books — the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's — and in none of the North American amateur books. How much North American rec and youth hockey runs on USA Hockey's book or Hockey Canada's is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it, so find out which book your league runs. NHL 54.2, IIHF 54.2 and PWHL 55.2 do permit a player to defend against an opponent's stick and require them to "immediately release" it; CARHA's Rule 63(a) penalises holding the stick with no such grace. Hockey Canada 8.1 permits only blocking — "While players are permitted to block an opponent's stick with their hands, arms, or body, they are not permitted to hold an opponent's stick" — and writes no release grace at all. USA Hockey's Rule 622 lists "grabbing the opponent's body, stick or jersey with one or both hands" with no impedance condition, and its Standard of Play tells officials these are "to be called with very strict enforcement." USA Hockey permits blocking an opponent's body — its Declaration of Player Safety: "A skater may block an opponent so long as they are in front of the opponent and moving in the same direction" — but the very next bullet limits it, "so long as they do not use a hand or arm to hold or block the opponent", and the phrase "fend off", which carries the permission in the NHL's and IIHF's Rule 56.1, appears nowhere in its playing-rules volume. ⚠️ USA Hockey does write that permission — in its Casebook, not its playing rules. Standard of Play, Situation 6 allows a player "in control of the puck" to use "the free arm to fend off the opponent and maintain their body position", provided the position is one they "legally established", and withdraws it the moment they "grab the stick, sweater or arm of the opponent, or use the free arm to push off and create space". ⚠️ Read what it lets you fend off: the opponent, not their stick. Rule 622's Note still names "using a free hand to clutch, grab or hold the stick" as holding, so the NHL's "or his stick" limb has no USA Hockey counterpart.
"Grabbing his cage is just two minutes." Never touch an opponent's cage. It is not two minutes under USA Hockey, Hockey Canada or the PWHL, and the two books that do list it there leave the referee a route straight past it. USA Hockey Rule 622(b) — its Holding an Opponent rule, not its unsportsmanlike one — puts a major plus a game misconduct on a player who uses their hand "to rub, grab or hold the facemask of an opponent", with a match penalty available at 622(c); and under Rule 404(b) a game misconduct also costs you "the team's next game", automatically. Hockey Canada does not file it under unsportsmanlike conduct either — Rule 7.1, Attempt to Injure, starts at a double minor at minimal violence and reaches a match penalty. The PWHL makes it a major for roughing plus a mandatory game misconduct even at a minimal degree of violence (Rules 51.3 and 51.5). The NHL and IIHF do list it in Rule 75.2 among the minors, but neither caps it there: the NHL's escalation turns on "if warranted" and its Rule 21 reaches an attempt to injure with nobody hurt, and the IIHF's own route — the British reader's — fires on the degree of force with no injury required at all, into Rule 21 Dangerous Actions and a major plus an automatic game misconduct. No book of the four lets you count on two minutes for a facemask grab, and nor does the PWHL.
"A punch with the glove on is just roughing — a mutual two." Do not throw one, and do not answer one: turn away, get to an official or your bench, and let the referee sort it out — see Body Contact and Battles. In the NHL and the IIHF, roughing really is defined as "a minor altercation that is not worthy of a major penalty to either participant". But no book makes that your ceiling, and the IIHF book — the British one — does not. IIHF Rule 46.5 gives "a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct penalty" to a player who punches "an unsuspecting or 'unwilling combatant / opponent' (i.e., 'sucker punch') that could cause an injury", and IIHF 51.2 sends a player who "persists in continuing to be involved in roughing" to the fighting rule. Under Hockey Canada a punch to the head, face or neck is not roughing at all: Rule 7.9's preamble says "if a player punches an opponent in the head, face or neck, then the appropriate penalty will be assessed under Rule 7.6 – Head Contact" — mandatory major plus game misconduct if injury results, and a match penalty available under 7.6(c). Under USA Hockey, Rule 640(a) sends anything major-worthy to Rule 615 Fighting, whose Note counts "a punch, or an attempted punch, thrown by any player in the direction of an opponent, regardless as to whether contact is made", and 615(a) is a major plus a game misconduct. Assume ejection, wherever you play. And if you are the one who was hit, three of the four books write you a way out — USA Hockey's is the plainest wording of it, not the only one that reaches it: Rule 615(a) says "a player who does not retaliate after being struck shall not be assessed a penalty for fighting under this rule." Retaliate and the same clause gives the referee a minor, a double minor or a major plus a game misconduct. Hockey Canada's is discretionary, and sits in an Interpretation rather than in a lettered clause where you would look for it — Interpretation 2 to Rule 7.10(a) and 7.10(b), under which a player who makes "no attempt to retaliate, other than to protect or defend themselves" leaves their opponent "the only player to be assessed a Major penalty and Game Misconduct for Fighting", while they themselves "may receive a Minor penalty for Roughing or perhaps no penalty at all." The IIHF's — yours in Britain — allows more, promises less, and moved between editions. The 2025/26 (Version 1.1) book gives it a rule of its own, 46.6 Defender – Unwilling Combatant, classing a player who "defends" themself with "a few punches" as an "unwilling combatant" — while assessing "at least a minor penalty" to one who retaliates "if the criteria for 'fighting back' with a few punches is not fulfilled." The 2026/27 edition deletes that rule — 46.6 there is Helmets — and repeats the relief instead inside 46.2, 46.8, 46.10 and 46.12 as a single sentence: a player who "defends" themselves against an aggressor or an instigator "may be considered as an 'unwilling combatant' and the automatic game misconduct penalty may be waived at the discretion of the referee." That waives the ejection, not the five minutes. No such relief was found in the NHL book, whose fighting rule uses "unwilling combatant" the other way round — at 46.2, to define the aggressor who keeps punching one — leaving 46.1's "very wide latitude" as the only route to it. No NHL casebook was available to search here, so read that as not found rather than as absent. And if it landed on your head, come off and say so: a suspected concussion means off the ice, no return that day, and a medical professional before you play again. Conditioning and Recovery carries the red flags that mean an ambulance instead, and the sources.
"Helmets come off in fights all the time — that is nothing." Do your chin strap up properly, and keep your hands away from anybody's helmet — yours included. ⚠️ It is nothing in exactly one pair of books, and they are the pair you have watched. NHL Rule 46.6 and IIHF Rule 46.12 — 46.6 in the 2026/27 edition — both close with "[h]elmets that come off in the course of and resulting from the altercation will not result in a penalty to either player." USA Hockey writes the opposite outcome into Rule 615(c). A match penalty, "(for all age classifications)", for deliberately removing your own helmet/facemask "prior to an altercation" or an opponent's "prior to or during" one; a game misconduct with an express two-game suspension for a player "whose actions during an altercation causes the removal of an opponent's helmet and facemask"; and a further game misconduct if yours comes off because you were not wearing it as designed — which its Casebook measures at Rule 615, Situation 19: "If the space between the player's lower jaw and the chin strap allows for more than one finger to be inserted into that space, then the chin strap is not being properly worn." Hockey Canada ejects you too, through its equipment rule rather than its fighting one — Rule 10.6(f), a Gross Misconduct for intentionally removing your own or an opponent's helmet before or during a fight, though its Interpretation 15 does excuse a genuinely incidental removal where nobody undid a chinstrap. ⚠️ And under USA Hockey none of this needs a fight: the Casebook's Note applying to Rule 615, Situations 14–20 applies the rule "in any altercation where at least one player will receive a penalty". Full four-book comparison in Body fouls and in Body Contact and Battles.
"A ten-minute misconduct puts us on the kill." Once you are given one, add nothing to it — no word to the referee and no shove on the way to the box. A misconduct on its own does not put your team on the kill: the player is replaced immediately and the team plays full strength (NHL Rule 22.3, and IIHF Rule 22.3 at the same number in both its 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions). The player pays; the team does not. ⚠️ But that holds only while the misconduct stands alone, and the rule says so in the same sentence — the NHL's applies "unless he also receives a minor, major or match penalty in addition to the misconduct penalty", and the IIHF's says the same thing in its own house plural — "unless they also receive a minor or major penalty in addition to the misconduct penalty", that book having no match penalty. A minor plus a misconduct is the common pairing, and then a substitute serves the minor and you are short-handed for those two minutes.
"The other team scored, so my major is over." Keep killing — they scored, but your major is still running. Majors do not expire on a goal (NHL and IIHF Rule 20.2, the same number and the same rule in both). Only minors and bench minors do, and only if the team is genuinely shorthanded and serving one.
"I only took two strides, so it cannot be charging." Count nothing: arrive under control, or do not arrive. ⚠️ Two strides is wrong on the count in one book, and wrong on the reasoning in every book. Hockey Canada 7.4(ii) makes charging "two or more strides immediately prior to making contact", so two strides is already the offence there, where USA Hockey Rule 607 writes "more than two strides" and the Note to CARHA Rule 52(a) "more than two steps or strides". But no book settles charging on the count. The same USA Hockey sentence continues "or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent"; IIHF 42.1 says only "multiple strides"; and the NHL puts no number on it at all, judging a charge "as a result of distance traveled" (42.1). ⚠️ And leaving your feet is a trigger on its own, with no approach needed — NHL 42.1 reaches a player who "skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner", IIHF 42.1 one who "jumps to check an opponent", and Hockey Canada's Interpretation 1 to 7.4(a) fixes the moment: feet off the ice "prior to making body contact". ⚠️ A minor is nobody's ceiling here. USA Hockey 607(a) writes no bare minor at all — "[a] minor plus a misconduct or a major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed for charging an opponent" — and 607(b) makes it a major plus a game misconduct, with no choice, when the charge recklessly endangers an opponent; under the IIHF book, which is the British reader's at every level, 42.4 reaches a major plus a game misconduct where the referee judges that the Player "recklessly endangers their opponent by 'charging'", with nobody hurt; and in CARHA's adult book a charge is a minor or, at the referee's discretion, a major that ends your game (30(a)), with a major plus a game misconduct mandatory once it injures (52(a)) or is on a goalkeeper inside the crease (52(b)).
"A hit to the head is two minutes." Keep your own hits below the shoulders, keep your head up, and keep your chin off your chest. Two minutes is the answer in the NHL alone, and only where the hit fell short of an attempt to injure — Rule 48.3 says "There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule", but that cap is 48.3's and not the offence's: Rule 48.5 lets the referee, "at his discretion", assess a match penalty where the player "attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head." And two minutes is not the answer anywhere else at all. IIHF Rule 48 covers the head or neck, states "There is no clean check to the head or neck", names jumping to deliver the blow as a trigger, and gives a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment (48.3). USA Hockey Rule 620(a) and Hockey Canada Rule 7.6 are the same shape — and 620(b) makes the major compulsory not only for reckless endangerment but for head contact that is no more than careless — "intentionally or carelessly". In Britain, and in North American youth and rec hockey, a hit to the head can end your game. And do not read that as protection you can skate on: the same IIHF rule says a bodycheck on an opponent "skating with the puck with their head down in the direction of the Player", delivered without an upward motion, "shall not be penalized for an 'illegal check to the head'." The checker's obligation not to hit your head is unchanged, and the IIHF book puts no penalty on the player whose head was down. ⚠️ And the same rule writes the half that is in your favour: IIHF 48.1 also provides that "When a Player is skating with their head up, whether they are in possession of the puck and may reasonably be expecting impending contact, an opponent does not have the right to hit them to the head or neck." The head-down carve-out is written for the checker; the head-up sentence is written for the player being hit — and the NHL bars an avoidable head hit at its own 48.1 but writes neither of them. Hockey Canada goes further, in junior and senior divisions only, and on a different trigger — ducking to avoid a check, not carrying the puck head down. Hockey Canada's Interpretation 3 to Rule 7.7(a) provides that a player who "ducks to avoid a check" and is hit in the head area with "an otherwise legal check" draws no Head Contact penalty against the checker, and that the referee "may assess a penalty to the player who ducks to avoid a check" under Hockey Canada Rule 8.7 — Clipping — a Minor under Hockey Canada Rule 8.7(a), but a mandatory major plus game misconduct under 8.7(b) if the duck injures the checker — or at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence even if nobody is hurt — and a mandatory match penalty under 8.7(c) for an attempt to injure as well as a deliberate one. The prohibition itself is 8.7's preamble, "Players may not crouch down to avoid being bodychecked." That Hockey Canada interpretation "does not apply to a player who is in a vulnerable position as the result of a legitimate hockey play (e.g. shooting, making or receiving a pass, etc.)", and no equivalent exception was found in USA Hockey's Playing Rules or in Hockey Canada's rules for minor and female hockey. ⚠️ And the crouching prohibition is not only Hockey Canada's — the IIHF writes one too, in the British reader's own book. IIHF Rule 44.1 says a player "may not crouch down near the boards to avoid being bodychecked and as a result, causes an opponent to tumble over them" — narrower than Hockey Canada's flat prohibition, because it wants the boards and the checker going over you, but real: IIHF 44.2 is a minor on the degree of violence and IIHF 44.3 reaches a major plus an automatic game misconduct for reckless endangerment. Neither the NHL nor USA Hockey writes any crouching clause at all. So keep your head up — and your chin off your chest — and note that under Hockey Canada, in any division, ducking out of the check is the version that can put you in the box as well, whatever penalty the checker takes, because Rule 8.7's prohibition on crouching carries no division scope; near the boards the IIHF book reaches it too. (What is confined to junior and senior is the checker's amnesty, Interpretation 3 to 7.7(a).) Head up is not standing tall into the hit either: wide base, knees bent, and near the wall get your skates parallel to it and take the contact along your side — your forearm and hip meet the wall, your shoulder and hip turn toward the checker — never the point of your shoulder and never your back to the boards — neither of those two is penalised in any book, and they are not guarding against the same injury: USA Hockey's reason for the shoulder tip is bare — "it can cause injury" — and says nothing about your neck, while turning your back hands the checker your spine and puts your head into the wall first. And the NHL and the IIHF — the book you play under in Britain — write a deliberate turn to draw the contact out of checking from behind altogether, at Rule 43.1 in each, so turning to draw the call loses it; Hockey Canada and USA Hockey write no such waiver, and the next entry has all four books' wording. Keep the whole shoulder off the wall too, if you can. And never duck, which is both penalised and dangerous: a chin tucked to your chest straightens the cervical spine, so a head-on hit into the wall stops the head while the body keeps going, compressing the spine hard enough to fracture a vertebra — an injury USA Hockey's Heads Up Hockey guide says "can occur at walking speed." Body Contact and Battles covers how to take one.
"He turned at the last second, so the check from behind is on him." If you can see his numbers, do not finish the check — pull up and play the puck. It is not on him — but the reason is not that every book puts an onus on the checker, because two of the four do not. USA Hockey Rule 608 states it in those words — "The onus is on the player delivering the check to not hit from behind" — and Hockey Canada's Interpretation 2 to Rule 7.5(a) puts this exact question and gives the penalty to the checker, because "The responsibility is always on the player delivering the check to avoid making contact with the back"; Hockey Canada's preamble to Rule 7.5 also names the player who "turns and, as a result, creates contact with the back" as the first situation referees are told to enforce strictly. NHL Rule 43 and IIHF Rule 43 state no onus at all. Where those two books do write one down it is in their boarding rules — NHL Rule 41.1 and IIHF Rule 41.1 — and there it is expressly balanced against "whether the opponent put themself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check", which is the very excuse being made here. (That is the IIHF's wording; the NHL's reads "himself".) Hockey Canada's boarding rule 7.2 carries the same balancing clause — but Hockey Canada sends this case back to the checking-from-behind rule anyway. Its Interpretation 1 to Rule 7.5(a) says that "if a player is cross-checked from behind into the boards or the goal, then Checking from Behind will be called", and Rule 7.5's own preamble is unqualified: "In all circumstances the responsibility is on the player delivering the check to avoid contact to an opposing player's back." The boarding balance does not rescue a hit from behind. So the answer is not the onus; it is that the waiver is for a deliberate turn, which is a different thing from a late one. NHL Rule 43.1 waives the penalty only where a player "intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back", and IIHF Rule 43.1 only where a player "intentionally turns their back towards an opponent and puts themself in a vulnerable position… to create a 'checking from behind' situation" — adding, as the NHL does not, that "other penalties may still be assessed." Turning late because you did not see the hit is not turning deliberately to draw it, and neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada writes even that waiver — under Hockey Canada the responsibility is "always" the checker's. Hockey Canada does write one waiver, and it is not about turning: Interpretation 3 to Rule 7.5(a) says the rule is not meant to catch "accidental contact as a result of playing the puck" where it is "marginal in nature and does not endanger the safety of the opponent", and that "pinning a player to the boards at low speed and with minimal impact is permitted, even if contact is initiated from behind (except under Rule 7.3 – Body-checking, as applicable)." That parenthetical is the whole no-checking game: Rule 7.3 covers U13 and below, all female hockey and any Member-approved division, and there 7.3(a) makes an intentional push or shove a minor — with 7.3(b) reaching a major plus a game misconduct on "the degree of violence of the impact" with nobody hurt, and making that same pair mandatory where the check injures. Neither limb of Interpretation 3 is about turning — a late turn is not accidental contact while playing the puck, and it is not a low-speed pin. And the cost is not two minutes: there is no minor option in the NHL or the IIHF (both at 43.2), Hockey Canada attaches a game misconduct to a minor and a major (Rule 7.5(e)), and only USA Hockey's minor-plus-misconduct (Rule 608(a)) leaves you in the game — and its Casebook gives that tier to an open-ice push and a low-force pinch, requiring the major and game misconduct or the match penalty "In every instance where a player forcefully checks an opponent who is standing along the boards (back toward the middle of the ice)", in every instance where a player is "thrust head first into the boards or goal frame", and in every instance of reckless endangerment "regardless of whether or not board contact is made" (Rule 608, Situation 1).
"Three majors before I'm thrown out." Play as though one is enough, because it very often is. Under Hockey Canada and CARHA Hockey the count never arises at all — Rule 4.4 and Rule 30(a) attach a game misconduct to every major, CARHA excepting only, for a skater, an accidental high stick that injures nobody. Three is the NHL's residual count (Rule 20.4) — and both books can eject you on a first major long before you reach it — though not for the same fouls, and the NHL not unconditionally. The genuine split between the NHL and IIHF books is narrower than the count suggests: IIHF 20.4 also ejects you for a second misconduct, which the NHL book does not, and the IIHF's residual trigger is a second major where the NHL's is a third. What both share is the limb that actually bites — an automatic game misconduct "whenever a [P]layer is assessed a major penalty for any of the infractions listed in the Reference Tables" — where the IIHF's sentence stops, and the NHL's runs on to name "Table 5 – Summary of Major Penalties". The IIHF's Table 6 — the 2025/26 book's number, merged into that edition's successor's single Table 5 — lists twenty, three of them fighting entries, so seventeen others — and applies to all of them unconditionally, among them checking from behind, clipping, illegal check to the head, high-sticking, cross-checking, slashing, hooking and slew-footing. The NHL's Table 5 is not the same list and not unconditional — it writes no major at all for high-sticking, slew-footing or an illegal check to the head — all three reach a match penalty there instead (60.4, 52.2, 48.5), and 52.2's is mandatory and unconditional while 60.4 and 48.5 need an attempt to injure or a deliberate one — and of its thirteen non-fighting rows six need an injury. So one major is enough for any of the IIHF's twenty, unconditionally — and for five more under Table 7 — likewise a 2025/26 number, and likewise merged into that single Table 5 — each written as a single major-plus-game-misconduct act — boarding 41.4, charging 42.4, elbowing 45.4, interference 56.5 and tripping 57.4 — and for seven of the NHL's thirteen, with six more once an opponent is injured. Assume the harsher reading.
"I can't screen the goalie." A screen set from outside the crease, without contact, is legal, and referees allow it constantly. What is illegal is impairing him by contact, establishing a significant position inside the crease that both obstructs his vision and impairs his ability to defend the goal (Rule 69.3 asks for all three of those, not any one of them) — and both of those grounds name the crease. Rule 69.1's clause about positioning sits under "Goals should be disallowed only if", a ceiling on when a goal may be taken off the board rather than a direction to take one off; the sentence in 69.1 that actually disallows one reaches an attacker who "enters the goal crease", and 69.4 takes the goal outside it for contact only. ⚠️ That answers the goal and not the penalty — 69.4's returning-goalkeeper clause still reaches where you stand out there, penalising an attacker whose "deliberate actions" prevent a goalkeeper who has played the puck outside the crease from returning to it, on a "may be penalized" with no contact in the clause at all. So an empty crease is not a free crease. On the goal, the books' own worked situations apply that crease keying: NHL Reference Table 14, the PWHL's own Table 14 and IIHF 2025/26 Appendix IV Table 16 each answer "Goal is allowed" at situations 5C and 5E, where the screen is set outside the crease and does impair the goalie, and the two rows they disallow, 5B and 5D, both put the attacker inside it. ⚠️ Reading the structure that way is not something any of them states in terms; those two table rows are the books' own words, though they are appendix interpretation rather than operative rule text. All three also add that the rule is "enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s)" — though only the NHL and the IIHF make a disallowed goal challengeable, the PWHL writing "Not applicable" against Coach's Challenge at its 71.5 and sending it to a Central Situation Room Review instead. Stand in his eyes; keep your feet out of the blue paint — and off the red line around it, which every book that settles the question in its rule text or glossary counts as part of the crease. ⚠️ It is the NHL's rule text that leaves it unsaid, and that is not the same as the NHL being silent: its Reference Table 14 puts a player "on the crease line" on the same footing as one outside the crease, and both that table and the IIHF's allow the screen on the line at 5E above. What puts the line inside the crease is USA Hockey's Note to Rule 625(b), IIHF Rule 1.7 and the Glossaries of Hockey Canada and CARHA Hockey — which leaves the IIHF book at odds with its own table. Off the line holds under every one of them, so play it that way. That crease keying is the NHL's, the PWHL's and the IIHF's only — the PWHL writes the whole rule in the feminine at its own Rule 71, so a PWHL player is inside it, not outside it. Neither USA Hockey nor Hockey Canada reaches a screen set from outside the crease — USA Hockey writes no goaltender-vision provision at all, and Hockey Canada's two references to the goaltender's view both reach only a player standing in the crease. Inside it the two books answer differently: USA Hockey bars the goal on your position alone, whoever scored, while Hockey Canada lets a teammate's goal from outside the crease stand — but only if you stay completely passive in there, making no attempt to play the puck, interfere with the play or impede the goaltender's "vision or movements".
"Any contact with the goalie is interference." Make a visible effort to go around him, and treat any contact you had time to avoid as a penalty you have bought. ⚠️ Under the NHL, the PWHL and the IIHF only, and the permission is narrower than it is usually quoted. In those three books, outside the crease incidental contact is permitted only while the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck, and then only if you made a reasonable effort to avoid it (Rule 69.4, and the PWHL's own Rule 71.4 in the same words). A goaltender who has come out to challenge and is not playing the puck is not covered by that clause at all, and both books say a penalty "should be assessed in every case" of unnecessary contact. Contact is separately permitted, with no such condition, on rebounds and loose pucks either side of the crease line, where goalkeeper and attacker are going for the puck at the same time (Rule 69.7, the PWHL's 71.7). ⚠️ But 69.7 is a permission with limits, and they sit in the same rule. It disallows the goal where a goalkeeper "has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop" — all three of those conditions together — and adds that "[i]f applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed"; it disallows the goal again where the puck is under a player in or around the crease and that player is pushed into the goal with it. It runs your way once: where a defending player pushed or fouled you into causing that push, "the goal can be permitted." ⚠️ USA Hockey writes no rebound carve-out, and its version of the first permission is keyed to possession rather than to the crease line. Rule 607(d) carries the "not fair game" protection for a goalkeeper outside the privileged area, and its Casebook at Rule 607, Situation 5 allows that such a goalkeeper "can be legally checked" — in a game Rule 604 permits body checking in, and in no other — while permitting an attacker to "physically engage with the goalkeeper in an effort to gain possession of the puck" only "When the goalkeeper has possession of the puck" — adding that once they are "no longer in control of the puck, any avoidable contact (meaning the attacking player has sufficient time to avoid the contact) must also be penalized under this rule." ⚠️ Hockey Canada writes something like the first and nothing like the second, so be exact about what its clause does. Rule 8.5 says that "While incidental contact with the goaltender may occur, attacking players must make an effort to avoid contact in all circumstances", and hangs the penalty on the effort: "The onus is always on the attacking player and players who do not make an effort to avoid the goaltender must be penalized." That is the penalty question, not the goal question, and it is not a rebound carve-out. On whether the goal counts, Hockey Canada runs the other way: its Interpretation 1 to Rule 8.5(a) reads "Any goal scored on a play where an attacking player initiates contact with the goaltender will be disallowed, regardless of whether the contact occurs inside or outside of the goal crease." — binding the attacking player, not the goaltender, with its only stated exception an attacker who is fouled by a defending player and as a result cannot avoid the contact. Under USA Hockey the permission runs while the goalkeeper has the puck and stops when they lose it, and there is no rebound carve-out to fall back on. Rule 607(d) Note 1 files even accidental or unavoidable contact with the goalkeeper under the Interference rule, and deliberate contact is charging — a minor plus a misconduct at the least, and a major plus a game misconduct if it is reckless (Rule 607(d) Note 1, 607(b)). Under Hockey Canada, making an effort to avoid the goaltender is what keeps you out of the box; it does not keep the goal on the board. ⚠️ And under Hockey Canada the cost is not capped at two minutes: Rule 8.5(b) reaches a major plus game misconduct three ways — at the referee's discretion "based on the degree of violence of impact", with nobody hurt, then mandatorily for a player who "charges the goaltender" and mandatorily for any interference-with-goaltender foul that injures an opponent — and 8.5(c) reaches a match penalty for attempting to injure or deliberately injuring a goaltender by interference. ⚠️ And CARHA writes no permission of either kind — no rebound carve-out and no possession one. Its Rule 66(b) is a minor for "any attacking player, who makes deliberate contact with a goalkeeper whether in or out of the goal crease", with a major at the Referee's discretion — and Rule 66(e) makes that major mandatory the moment the contact injures, while Rule 30(a) rules any player given a major "off the ice for the remainder of the game (Major penalty plus Game Misconduct)", an accidental high stick that injures nobody its only exception for a skater. Hurting a goalkeeper by interference in CARHA costs you the game and at least a one-game suspension (Rule 32(d)), not two minutes, so in that book the instruction at the top of this bullet is the whole of the answer.
"Our goalie can go get it as long as a defenceman is coming." Where your book has a trapezoid, play the puck behind your goal line only inside it or with a skate still on your crease — otherwise leave it for your defenceman, however close he is. There is no teammate-based exception to the trapezoid. The only exception either rule writes is the goalie maintaining skate contact with his crease (NHL Rule 27.8; IIHF Rule 27.7) — the IIHF adds two more in its Situation Handbook rather than its rule book, and a teammate is in neither. See §7.
"The puck was still on our side of the red line, so our goalie was allowed to play it." Keep both your skates and the puck on your own side of the red line and you are legal everywhere. ⚠️ It is true in two books and a two-minute minor in the other two, and this one catches goalies out every season. Under the NHL and the IIHF the rule says the position of the puck decides (NHL 27.7; IIHF 27.6), so it is legal. Under USA Hockey and Hockey Canada the position of the goalkeeper's skates decides — a goalie whose skates are over the line playing a puck on his own side is penalised (USA Hockey Casebook Rule 407 Situation 13; Hockey Canada Interpretation 2 to Rule 4.13(c)). How much North American rec and youth hockey runs on USA Hockey's book or Hockey Canada's is a question about leagues rather than about books, and this document has no count for it, so find out which book your league runs.
"Closing my hand on the puck at the draw is a faceoff violation." At the dot your hand is simply out of it — win the draw with your stick. Under the NHL and IIHF it is a minor penalty (Rule 67.2) — and those two books escalate in the crease as well, though they print it differently: the NHL hangs a Note off 67.2(ii) reading "When this is done in his team's goal crease area, a penalty shot shall be assessed (67.4) or a goal awarded (67.5)", while the IIHF writes the escalation into the body of 67.2(II) itself — "When this is done in their team's goal crease area, a 'Penalty Shot' shall be assessed", pointing from there at its own 67.4 – Penalty Shot and 67.5 – Goal Awarded. Both books reach both outcomes; only the typography differs. Under USA Hockey, covering a loose puck on the ice with your hand is a minor — Rule 614(a)'s Note says "the use of hands to make the puck unplayable should be penalized promptly", and so is picking the puck up off the ice (618(a)); only a closed hand that is not immediately dropped is a bare stoppage and last-play faceoff (618(a)). In the crease that same 618(a) makes it a penalty shot or optional minor, and an awarded goal on an empty net — ⚠️ though USA Hockey alone conditions that awarded goal, 614(b) requiring that the act "has prevented an obvious and imminent goal" where the other three books ask only that the goalkeeper had been replaced. Hockey Canada is a fourth answer again: Rule 10.2(a)(iii) makes the closed hand a minor only where the player "by doing so, gains an advantage", and expressly excludes "a player who closes their hand on the puck to catch or stop the puck and immediately drops it to the ice". It escalates in the crease too, at 10.2(a)(v) — a penalty shot for that same closed hand "when the infraction occurs inside the offending team's goal crease", and an awarded goal under 10.2(a)(vi) with the net empty. All four books get harsher near your own net; only the ordinary-ice answer differs. Either way it is not a faceoff violation. Batting the puck with the hand to win the draw is a minor for delay of game — faceoff violation. Neither is a simple "do it again". ⚠️ And do not reach for the permission at the top of Rule 67.2 to get out of this: you may normally catch a puck out of the air and knock it straight down, but under the NHL and IIHF the note to 67.2 — printed again at Rule 76.5 — takes that away from the two takers "until such time as a third player (from either team) has at least touched the puck."
"Only the centre can cause a faceoff violation." If you are not taking the draw, keep both skates outside the circle and off its line, stay onside, and at an end-zone dot stay on your own side of the hash marks until the puck drops. The opposite is the common case: a winger encroaching gets the centre ejected from the draw (Rule 76.6 — 76.7 defines the violation and the second-violation bench minor). A second violation by the same team on the same draw is a bench minor — under USA Hockey Rule 613(d) it is instead a minor on the individual who committed it, not a bench minor. ⚠️ The IIHF used to be the exception to that and no longer is — its 2025/26 book warned the team and ejected nobody, but its 2026/27 book, published June 2026, has the draw-taker "ejected from the face-off circle" in the NHL's own words (IIHF 2026/27 Rule 76.6). What is still IIHF-only is the skate win: legal in the NHL, a violation under both IIHF editions (Rule 76.3(VI)).
"Every puck over the glass is a penalty." Never put it over the glass from your own zone, and never put it out deliberately from anywhere — chip it off the glass and keep it in play. Under USA Hockey it is not strict liability — but a deliberate clear still is a minor, from anywhere on the ice and expressly "including after a stoppage of play" (610(c)); only an accidental one escapes, with a last-play faceoff (631(d)). ⚠️ And after a stoppage the minor is not USA Hockey's ceiling — Rule 601(c)(10) reaches a misconduct for the same act, 601(d)(7) and 601(d)(9) a game misconduct, and the Note to 601(d) a match penalty; see the next bullet. Hockey Canada writes two limbs, and the first is not confined to skaters: 10.1(ii) reaches "[a] player who deliberately shoots, bats, or throws the puck outside the playing surface", from anywhere — and "player" there textually includes the goaltender, because Hockey Canada's Glossary defines "PLAYERS" as "[t]he members of the team physically participating in the game. The goaltender is considered a player, except where explicitly stated because special rules or privileges apply to them." Rule 10.1 knows how to name a goaltender expressly — it does so at 10.1(v), at 10.1(vi) and in its unnumbered Players' Bench paragraph — and it does not at 10.1(ii). The book then points at that limb from elsewhere in exactly those terms. Its face-off-location rule, 6.3(e)(i) Note 1, reads "Notwithstanding the previous, Referees must penalize any player of either team who deliberately shoots, bats, or throws the puck outside the playing surface, as per Rule 10.1 (ii) – Delay of Game" — no goaltender exclusion, one rule away from 6.4(a), which does carry one for a materially similar act. Hockey Canada writes an express "excluding the goaltender" five times — at 2.4(b) Note 2, at 6.2 (in the plural), at 6.4(a), in the hybrid-icing rule 6.7(e)(i) and at 10.2 — and at 10.1(ii) it does not. ⚠️ That is still a reading of the rule's words rather than something the book rules on: none of the twelve Interpretations to 10.1(a) addresses whether 10.1(ii) reaches a goaltender. 10.1(v) then names a goaltender who shoots or bats it "directly out of the playing surface, with their stick", and writes no deliberateness word where 10.1(ii) does. The gap between the two limbs is the glove: 10.1(v) is confined to the stick, and 10.1(ii) is the only limb in Rule 10.1 reaching a puck thrown out of the playing surface — 10.1(vi) also says "throws", but of a goaltender who puts the puck "onto the top or back of the goal netting", which is a different act. So a goaltender who deliberately throws the puck over the glass is reached by 10.1(ii) rather than by 10.1(v), while an accidental glove clearance, or a deflection, is reached by neither. ⚠️ But whether the missing word makes (v) strict liability is a reading of the rule's structure, not something the book states: Rule 10.1's preamble reaches only a player or team who "deliberately causes a stoppage of play or delays the restart of play", 10.1(a) hangs the minor on "deliberately delaying the game", and none of the twelve Interpretations to Rule 10.1(a) settles it. Interpretation 5 is the one written to this limb, and it does carve out two cases in the goaltender's favour — no penalty where there is no glass, "or if the puck touches the glass or deflects off a player or official", and none at all unless "both ends of the rink" are similar. Neither escape is about intent, so assume the harsher reading and ask your league. Under the NHL and IIHF the strict-liability version applies only from your own defending zone, only if direct and non-deflected, and not into the bench, not directly off a faceoff, and not where there is no glass (Rule 63.2(iii)). ⚠️ The bench one is much narrower than it sounds, though. Under the IIHF Situation Handbook only a puck "shot directly into the Players' Bench (where there is no glass)" escapes: a clear that goes over the glass and merely lands in the bench is still a minor, because what is judged is "where the puck leaves the playing surface" (Situation 63.24, 2025/26 and 2026/27 alike). Aiming at the bench under pressure is aiming at the penalty. ⚠️ Under the IIHF, do not count a skate as outside that limb — Rule 63.2(III) names only "their hand or stick", but the IIHF Situation Handbook answers "Yes." at Situation 63.19 to a defender who kicks at the puck to block a shot and puts it over the glass — in the 2025/26 book's Version 1.1 (August 2025), reversing the "No" of its own Version 1.0, and again in the 2026/27 book (Version 1.0, June 2026). The rule book outranks the Handbook by the Handbook's own Foreword, so the words stand — but the officiating document has moved against you. But note Rule 63.2(ii): a player who deliberately shoots or bats the puck out of the playing area "from anywhere on the ice surface" takes the same minor. Outside your own end you are safe only if it was an accident.
"The whistle has gone, so I can just fire it into the corner." After the whistle, leave the puck where it is or pass it gently to the official — never shoot it away. Where the puck ends up is only half of it. What it goes near is the other half, and that half is where the ejections are. ⚠️ Firing it is two minutes in the NHL and the IIHF, and the bottom rung of a ladder in the two amateur books. NHL and IIHF Rule 63.2(ii) reach a player who deliberately shoots or bats the puck out of the playing area "during the play or after a stoppage of play", and NHL Rule 63.9 scopes delay of game to "a penalty (minor, bench minor, penalty shot or awarded goal)" — no misconduct rung in either book. USA Hockey has one. A misconduct for a player who "[s]hoots or bats the puck outside of the playing area during a stoppage of play" (601(c)(10)); a game misconduct if it was "done in protest of an official's decision" (601(d)(7)) or if it went "in the general direction of an on-ice official, or in the direction of a spectator" (601(d)(9)); and a match penalty in the Note to 601(d) for a puck shot "directly at an official or spectator in a manner that recklessly endangers" them — with 610(c)'s plain minor also on the page and the book never saying which of the two governs, and no Casebook situation found that decides it. Hockey Canada writes the act out in full, not in its delay-of-game rule but at Rule 11.1, preamble item (v) — "Shooting the puck out of the playing area, after the whistle" — a Minor or Bench Minor under 11.1(a), a Misconduct under 11.1(d)(i) for persisting, because 10.1(d) forbids a misconduct for delay of game. ⚠️ And 11.1(d)'s own Note 1 lets a referee go straight to that Misconduct — "not required to assess a Minor penalty under this rule before assessing a Misconduct penalty" — so there is no free one first.
"The referee blows the whistle as soon as the offending team touches the puck on a delayed penalty." Keep playing until they control it — a deflection off their skate does not end it. The condition is control, not touch (NHL and IIHF Rule 15.1, which both say the whistle comes "when the team to be penalized gains control of the puck").
"We're on a delayed penalty, so let's shoot." Keep the puck, and regroup if you must. A missed shot they recover ends your six-on-five and downgrades you to a five-on-four.
"We're killing, we can't ice it." Use the clear while you are below their numbers — but find out first where your book takes it back. Not using your shorthanded clear where you have it is a common penalty-kill error — and you have it whenever you are below their numerical strength (Rule 81.6). But not unconditionally, because two of the books carve the exemption back. Under USA Hockey the nullification is prefixed "(For all Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult classifications only)" (Rule 624(b)(1)), so below those levels a shorthanded team cannot ice the puck at all — the clear comes straight back for a defensive-zone draw. Under the NHL, Rule 81.6's third paragraph withdraws it from a team that has "neglected to ensure there is a player on the penalty bench to exit upon the expiry of the penalty": they "are not permitted to ice the puck. Icing will be called." ⚠️ That one bites when the major expires, not while you are killing it — Rule 20.3 lets the penalty bench stay empty until a stoppage before the penalty ends — though not where minors are being served alongside the major, where the substitute is due "immediately" — so on a major whose player was ejected it takes nothing from the clear inside those five minutes. The IIHF book carries neither of those two, so nothing withdraws the clear from a British team. ⚠️ Your bench is a different question and it is priced: an empty penalty box past the deadline is a bench minor, under IIHF Rule 68.2 and under the NHL's own Rule 68.2 in the same words — and under USA Hockey Rule 206(d) wherever it was an injured penalised player whose seat is empty, unless Rule 403(d) or 405(a) has stood that duty aside, as both do for adult classifications on a major plus game misconduct and on a match. ⚠️ Under the IIHF the substitute is due "immediately", so the breach is complete while the major is still running and on a kill those two minutes can make it a 5-on-3. The NHL's own 68.2 sets its deadline at the expiry instead, and its book does not settle whether the two ever overlap — so do not carry the 5-on-3 across to the NHL. ⚠️ But one condition is in every book read here and it is the one that catches a kill: the test is a head count and not a clock — you are exempt while you are below their on-ice numerical strength, and a player whose own penalty has expired counts as back on the ice even while he is still sitting in the box (NHL and IIHF Rule 81.6, USA Hockey 624(b)(1), Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(b) with its Note 1, CARHA Rule 65(d) with Note 2 to 65(a)). So on a 5-on-3 the first expiry changes nothing — you are 4-on-5, still short, still free to ice it — and the test runs your way at the other end too, because a clear released before the penalty expires is not icing even if the clock runs out while the puck is travelling. That it is a common error is coaching craft rather than a count, because nobody has counted recreational-league calls.
"My stick broke, so I'll just play it out." Open your hand the moment it breaks — keeping it is a minor. Rule 10.3 lets you keep playing without a stick but not with a broken one — "a player whose stick is broken may participate in the game provided he drops the broken stick." 🇬🇧 And under the IHUK In-House Rules do not carry it to the bench instead — the IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27 add a Rule 10.3, new this season, under which "[s]kating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted" and a player whose stick breaks "must drop their stick immediately", on pain of "a 2min penalty for illegal equipment", with no allowance for being near your bench or out of the play. Hockey Canada Rule 3.2(a) is the same flat drop. USA Hockey is the one book here that lets you carry it, and only if you are in the immediate vicinity of the bench, completely out of the play, and go at once. And do not take a teammate's by having it thrown or slid to you on the ice; it must be handed over, or picked up off the ice (a minor under the NHL and the IIHF, which penalise the thrower, and under CARHA Rule 51(b), which penalises you for taking it; the PWHL's Rule 10.3 carries no such sentence, and USA Hockey Rule 605(b) allows a replacement only from your bench or from a teammate on the ice). Your goalie is the exception: under NHL Rule 10.4 — and IIHF Rule 10.4, which reaches both results in its own words, writing that a goalie may play on until one is "legally handed to them" where the NHL writes "legally provided to him" — they may carry on with a broken stick until a stoppage, and must be handed a replacement on the ice rather than fetching one from the bench. That permission is the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (Rule 10.4). It is not in the USA Hockey book — Rule 605(c) covers only where the stick comes from, and 605(a) is written to cover "a player or goalkeeper" alike — and Hockey Canada bars it in terms, at Rule 3.2(c): "A goaltender may not continue to play with a broken stick of any kind." Under either book that is a minor, so do not assume a goalie may keep playing with a broken one.
"It's beer league — there is no rulebook." Ask whether your league is CARHA-affiliated, and ask which of USA Hockey or Hockey Canada it otherwise adopts. ⚠️ There may well be one, and it may be harsher than the book you have watched on television. No single document governs recreational hockey, but CARHA Hockey publishes a full standalone rulebook for the leagues affiliated to it, and where it applies a high stick that contacts an opponent above the shoulders starts at a major (Rule 62(b)), the slap shot is banned outright (Rule 79(a)), body contact is itself the offence (Rule 49(a)), and checking from behind has no rung that leaves you on the ice (Rule 53(a)) — and there every major ejects you (Rule 30(a)), the one exception for a skater being an accidental high stick that injures nobody. ⚠️ That is CARHA-affiliated adult leagues only, and many adult leagues are not affiliated — which is exactly why the question is worth asking rather than guessing at. Section 10 sets out what turns on the answer.
"It's just chirping." There is no rung of this you can gamble on, and nothing about it has to be said on the ice. Not once it is a racial slur, a taunt or a sexual remark — that is an ejection in every book read here, and in three of them it goes past a game misconduct. Under the IIHF book, which is the British reader's, 75.2(I) gives the minor for abusive language "directed at any person" and adds "An additional game misconduct penalty" for that content, which 75.5(II) writes as "shall be assessed" and extends to conduct "during or after the game, on or off the ice and any location while in the arena and its connected premises". USA Hockey 601(e)(3) is a match penalty, Hockey Canada 11.4 and CARHA 46(g) a Gross Misconduct, and only the NHL leaves it discretionary — 23.8(ii), a list of infractions that "can also result in" a game misconduct.
"I'll just tell the ref what I think." Leave it to your captain — only the captain and alternates have standing at all. Disputing a call from the penalty box after play has resumed is an automatic misconduct (NHL Rule 75.4(iv); IIHF 75.4(IV) is the same sentence).
"The rules are the rules." They are not. Trapezoid, icing type, body checking, tagging up, overtime, penalty length, the penalty for a high stick and the penalty for a hit to the head all vary between the NHL, the IIHF, USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and your league. Read your league's sheet before your first game.

Check yourself

These eight questions are optional, and nothing on this page depends on answering one — skip to the Key Takeaways if you would rather. If you do want them, attempt each before you go on, because producing an answer and getting it wrong is worth more than recognising a right one — and then go and check, since the checking is the part that does the work. Each question names the section that answers it, the Key Takeaways below carry the rest, and where an answer lives in another document that is named too.

A hit catches an opponent's head. What is the ceiling on that penalty in the NHL, what does the IIHF book reach instead and on what trigger — and which of the two should a British player learn it from? (§Body fouls, and §10)
You have already taken one major tonight. Under which book might that first one have ended your game already, under which does the next one end it, and what does the NHL book wait for? And what do two ten-minute misconducts do under each of them? (§Penalties — Major and Misconduct, and §10)
You are carrying through the neutral zone and want to fire it in. Under the NHL and IIHF books, what exactly has to reach the centre red line, and on what? What do the USA Hockey and Hockey Canada books ask instead? (§"Gaining the line")
Your trail skate is in the air over the neutral zone at the instant the puck crosses the blue line. In how many of the four books are you onside, and what do the others require you to do differently? (§2. Offside — Rule-set differences)
The linesperson's arm is up for a delayed offside and you are still in the zone. Under the NHL and IIHF books, name two things you can do without touching the puck that bring the whistle anyway — and say which of them none of the USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA books writes. (§Delayed offside and tagging up)
Your winger leans over the hash marks before the drop. What does that cost your team under the NHL book, and what does it cost instead under the IIHF book? And which routine North American way of winning a draw is itself a violation there? (§8. Faceoffs — the two things you must not leave without)
Your goalie wants to go for a puck outside the trapezoid because a defenceman is on the way. What is the one exception the rule actually carries? (§The trapezoid, and §Common Mistakes)
Your stick snaps in the corner with the puck at your feet. What must you do in that same instant, what may you legally keep doing for the rest of the shift, and how may a replacement reach you? And if you play in Britain, which book forbids you to carry the broken one to the bench even when you are out of the play? (§Broken sticks)

Key Takeaways

One skate keeps you onside, and the blue line is a foot wide — so drag a trail skate and enter at speed, with the blade on the ice. A raised skate is offside under USA Hockey Rule 630(a) and Hockey Canada Rule 6.11, onside in the NHL, IIHF and PWHL books as long as it is held wholly back over the neutral zone, and settled neither way by CARHA Rule 72(c) — so a dragged blade is the only version that is onside in every book. On a delayed offside, get every attacker out with a skate genuinely touching the line, and nobody goes back in or touches the puck until the zone is clear — touching it or going for a loose puck ends the play in the NHL, IIHF, PWHL, USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA books alike. ⚠️ Do not close on the defending puck carrier expecting a whistle to arrive before you do — USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and CARHA write no contact trigger, so he is still playing the puck and he is not braced for you. ⚠️ And if you are that carrier, keep your head up and expect to be hit whichever book you play under, because every trigger that protects you lapses the instant the puck leaves your stick — and Hockey Canada and CARHA write none at all. Tag-up is not universal either: under USA Hockey Rule 630(d) it applies only at Youth 15-Only and above, Girls 16U and above, High School and Adult — below those the whistle is immediate.
Under hybrid icing, race to the puck, not the dot — the dot is only the deadline for the linesperson's decision, and a race too close to call at that instant is icing. "Gaining the line" — the puck on your stick touching the centre red line — is the NHL's, the IIHF's and the PWHL's (Rule 81.1; PWHL Rule 83.1); USA Hockey (Rule 624 Note) and Hockey Canada (Rule 6.7, Interpretation 5) judge the point of last contact with the puck instead. Getting the puck itself past the line works in all four. And hybrid is far from universal: USA Hockey is automatic in every standing classification (Rule 624), and Hockey Canada is automatic everywhere except U18AAA, Junior and any Senior league whose Member has adopted hybrid (Rule 6.7(e)). Check yours. 🇬🇧 And check the competition regulation as well as the rule book, because it can delete the rule rather than vary it: IHUK junior competition has no icing at U12 at all — "No icing calls at U12", IHUK Junior Rules of Competition, Appendix D, inside the U12 format, which also runs the clock unless both teams agree otherwise beforehand, and does not stop play for offside.
Do not ice the puck to buy a rest. In the NHL and IIHF books an icing costs you a defensive-zone draw, no line change and no timeout, and that is the version a British player should assume. Find out which of those your own book charges before you plan a tired shift around the clear. ⚠️ Under USA Hockey the change is allowed, but it is not a free change: Rule 624 restricts no substitution and Rule 636(f) puts no icing condition on a timeout, yet the change window still closes at every stoppage, and a team that ignores it is penalised after a warning from the referee (Rules 204(a) and 610(g)) — so change promptly or not at all. Hockey Canada bars the change only in U18AAA and Junior, and in Senior at the Member's option (Rule 6.7(d)), so if you play adult Hockey Canada hockey, assume you stay on until somebody tells you otherwise. Knocking your own net off buys the same package in the NHL and IIHF books (Rule 63.8), and being tired is not one of its exceptions. On the kill, the clear is yours only while you are below their on-ice strength — and USA Hockey withholds even that below Youth 15-Only, Girls 16U, High School and Adult (Rule 624(b)(1)), while the NHL withdraws it from a team short-handed by a major that has left nobody on the penalty bench to come out when the major expires (Rule 81.6).
When they score on your major, keep killing — a goal against ends a minor you are short-handed for, never a major (Rule 20.2), and a misconduct on its own never leaves your team shorthanded (Rule 22.3). And play as though a major ends your game, because very often it does. Under Hockey Canada (Rule 4.4) it always does, and under CARHA Hockey (Rule 30(a)) it does for a skater every time but one — an accidental high stick that injures nobody. ⚠️ In British women's hockey it always does too, at every age — IHUK In-House Rules, Section 11, Rule 101 gives an additional game misconduct and ejection "in all cases". In the NHL's book and the IIHF's, a first major can end your game with nobody hurt: the IIHF's tables attach an automatic game misconduct to the major for checking from behind, cross-checking, slashing, hooking, high-sticking, slew-footing and an illegal check to the head among others, though calling the major at all is the referee's judgement; the NHL's individual rules make some majors automatic ejections and others conditional on injury, while its Rule 20.4 attaches no condition — so assume the harsher reading. Beyond that, the IIHF ejects on a second major or a second misconduct, and the NHL on a third major (Rule 20.4).
Keep your hits below the shoulders, and carry the puck with your head up and your chin off your chest. A hit to the head short of an attempt to injure is a minor in the NHL (48.3), but it can end your game in every other book — learn it from the harshest one, not the most watched. The IIHF covers the head or neck and opens its rule "There is no clean check to the head or neck"; USA Hockey makes the major plus game misconduct compulsory even for contact that is no more than careless (620(b)); and Hockey Canada 7.6 opens "There is no type of legal contact to the head, face, or neck." If you play in Britain, the lenient version is not yours. ⚠️ Head up also protects you under the IIHF book: Rule 48.1 does not penalise as an illegal check to the head a hit on a player skating with the puck head down toward the checker, where the checker uses no upward motion — though it still requires every checker to avoid the head — and it says a player skating with their head up may not be hit to the head or neck. Carrying the puck head down is not the same as ducking a check, which is the next takeaway. ⚠️ And whichever rule got you there, if a hit lands on your head, come off and say so: a suspected concussion means off the ice, no return that day, and a medical professional before you play again — Conditioning and Recovery carries the red flags that mean an ambulance instead, and the sources.
Never duck or crouch to avoid a check. The reason is anatomy rather than a rule, so it holds whatever your book says. USA Hockey's Heads Up Hockey programme guide sets out the mechanism: when the head is flexed, chin toward the chest, "the cervical spine becomes straight", so a head-on collision with the boards or a goal post stops the head while the body keeps moving, "compressing the spine" hard enough to fracture a vertebra — an injury the same guide says "can occur at walking speed." Take the hit with your head up, a wide base and your knees bent; near the wall, get your skates parallel to it and take the contact along your side, with your forearm and hip meeting the wall — never the point of your shoulder, and never your back to the boards. ⚠️ The duck can be penalised as well: Hockey Canada Rule 8.7 says players "may not crouch down to avoid being bodychecked", with no division scope — a minor, a major plus a game misconduct at the referee's discretion on the degree of violence, and a mandatory one if it injures — and IIHF Rule 44.1, the British reader's, bars crouching near the boards so that an opponent tumbles over you. And never turn your back deliberately to draw the contact: the NHL and the IIHF write a deliberate turn out of checking from behind at Rule 43.1 in each, so it loses you the call as well as giving you the hit. See Body Contact and Battles for the technique itself.
If you can see his numbers, do not finish the check — pull up and play the puck. Checking from behind has no small version. The NHL and the IIHF write no minor for it at all — a major plus an automatic game misconduct (43.2 in each); Hockey Canada attaches a game misconduct to its minor and its major alike (Rule 7.5(a), 7.5(e)); and USA Hockey's minor plus misconduct (608(a)), the only tier of the four that leaves you in the game, is given by its Casebook to an open-ice push or a low-force pinch — a major plus a game misconduct, or a match penalty, is required "In every instance where a player forcefully checks an opponent who is standing along the boards (back toward the middle of the ice)", wherever the check puts him head first into the boards or goal frame, and wherever it recklessly endangers (Rule 608, Situation 1). "He turned at the last second" is no defence in any of them — the only turn the NHL and IIHF waive is a deliberate one. If you play in Britain, the IIHF version binds and there is no minor to hope for.
Keep your stick on the puck, never on the player, and keep your feet out of theirs — a stick foul is usually a tired player reaching instead of skating. That is coaching craft, not a count: nobody has counted recreational-league calls. ⚠️ Two acts cannot be banked on as two minutes. A cross-check above the shoulders is a mandatory major plus a game misconduct, "whether or not injury results", under Hockey Canada (Rules 7.6(b) and 7.7(b)) and CARHA Hockey (Rule 54(b)); under USA Hockey one that reaches the head is Head Contact, a minor plus a misconduct at the floor and a mandatory major plus a game misconduct if careless (Rule 620); the NHL and IIHF leave the referee a minor at the bottom (59.2) and a major plus a game misconduct above it (NHL 59.3 and 59.5, IIHF 59.3), with an NHL match penalty for an attempted or deliberate injury (59.4). In minor and female hockey, Hockey Canada's interpretation to 7.6(b) aims it at a deliberate cross-checking action rather than minimal accidental contact, which is still a minor there (7.6(a)); Junior and Senior (7.7(b)) have no such interpretation. CARHA writes no such limit, and under CARHA any cross-check that injures costs the same (54(c)). Slew-footing — the leg through the skates from what began as an ordinary battle position — is a match penalty in the NHL, whose rule defines it as taking an opponent's feet so that he falls "violently to the ice" (Rules 52.1 and 52.2); a major plus an automatic game misconduct under the IIHF (52.2); a major plus a game misconduct as the minimum under USA Hockey 639(b); and a double minor rising to a match penalty under Hockey Canada (8.8(a), 8.8(c)). Under USA Hockey, a hook, slash, trip, cross-check or high stick stops being two minutes once it is reckless: each is a mandatory major plus a game misconduct when it recklessly endangers an opponent (Rules 623(b), 634(b), 639(b), 609(b), 621(b)). And under USA Hockey or Hockey Canada do not assume a high stick needs contact: USA Hockey's Casebook answers "No." to whether contact must occur (Rule 621, Situation 2), against its own Rule 621 Note, which requires it; Hockey Canada's Junior/Senior Rule 9.5 says a high-sticking penalty "may be assessed regardless of whether or not contact occurs", though 9.5(a), the only clause that assesses one, requires contact.
Screen the goalie from outside the crease, without contact: get in their eyes, keep your skates out of the blue paint and off the red line around it, and never stand in the goaltender's road back to the crease. Off the line is the instruction that holds in every book, because every book that settles the question in its rule text or glossary counts the line as part of the crease. A screen set from outside the crease is allowed in the NHL's, the PWHL's and the IIHF's own situation tables — though the call is the referee's judgement, and not something you will get to argue from the ice. Make a real effort to go around the goalie. Stand in the crease and every book puts your goal at risk in its own way — so stay out of it. ⚠️ And contact with the goalie can end your game: Hockey Canada 8.5(b) reaches a major plus game misconduct at the referee's discretion with nobody hurt, and mandatorily for a player who charges the goaltender or injures an opponent by interfering with one; USA Hockey makes deliberate contact with the goalie a charge, and a reckless charge a major plus a game misconduct with no choice (607(b)); in the NHL and the PWHL a charging major that injures the face or head carries a game misconduct (42.5); CARHA Hockey reaches a mandatory ejection by two routes of its own — its charging rule, and Rule 66(e)'s major for injuring an opponent by interference — and Rule 30(a) makes any major there an ejection, including the one Rule 66(b) leaves to the referee for deliberate contact with nobody hurt. Goalies: where your book has a trapezoid, there is no teammate exception to it — behind your goal line, play the puck inside it or with a skate still on your crease, or leave it for your defenceman. ⚠️ And "no trapezoid" is not "no restriction": USA Hockey Rule 614(c) and CARHA Hockey Rule 58(b) both make it a minor for a goalkeeper to fall on or gather the puck into the body behind the goal line with the body entirely outside the crease — so fetch a corner puck, but never smother it there — and under USA Hockey the corners are outside the privileged area, so move the puck on quickly.
Find out which rule set you play under before your first shift — and whether your classification allows body checking at all, because where it does not, the check itself is the penalty. USA Hockey Rule 604(a) bars it at 12 & under and every age below it, in all Girls'/Women's and all non-check adult classifications, and lets a local governing body "prohibit body checking in any classification"; Hockey Canada Rule 7.3 penalises it at U13 and below, in female hockey and in any Member-approved division; and in Britain the IHUK Rules of Competition make junior hockey non-checking at U10 and U12 and the women's NIHL non-checking throughout. The books also differ on the trapezoid, icing, tagging up and penalty length, and on what a high stick, a hit to the head, a cross-check that rides up, a hand on an opponent's cage, a helmet off in a scrum, a broken stick, a racial slur, a taunt or a sexual remark, and a long run-up into a check cost you. ⚠️ Under the IIHF, ask which edition as well — the 2025/26 and 2026/27 books differ on the face-off violation and on high-sticking, and the British In-House Rules name both of them. ⚠️ And if you play adult recreational hockey in North America, ask whether your league is CARHA-affiliated. Where it is, a high stick that contacts an opponent above the shoulders is a major from the first contact (Rule 62(b)), with a game misconduct on top where it was intentional or where an accidental one injures, and every other major a skater takes there ejects (Rule 30(a)). Many adult recreational leagues are not affiliated, so do not assume either way — ask, and ask before your first shift.

Sources — retrieved 27 July 2026, except the In-House Rules: the 2025-26 edition 29 July 2026, the 2026-27 edition 29 August 2026

Primary rulebooks: NHL Official Rules 2025-2026 (PDF) — Rules 1, 5, 10, 15–29, 31–32, 34, 38, 41–64, 74.1 and 74.3 (read 31 August 2026: 74.1's "within five feet (5') of his players' bench and out of the play before the change is made", its two triggers, and its bar on leaving by "any other exit leading from the rink"; 74.3's same five feet for a player leaving the penalty bench) (including 48.1's avoidability factors, which the IIHF carries as 48.1(V)–(VII) in the plural: whether the opponent "materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit" (iii) and whether he "put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable" (ii) — circumstances weighed in deciding whether the head contact was avoidable, not exemptions, and neither book penalises the player who ducked), 67, 69 — including 69.4's second paragraph, which carries both the "not fair game" restriction and the permission conditioned on the goalkeeper being "in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease", and 69.4's third paragraph, the returning-goalkeeper protection ("When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference") and its reciprocal, in the same paragraph, which penalises the goalkeeper who deliberately interferes from outside the crease, and 69.7 read in full for all four of its limbs — the rebound and loose-puck permission; the disallowed goal where a goalkeeper "has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop", with "[i]f applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed"; the sentence after it permitting the goal where the attacking player "was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player" causing that push; and the fourth, under which "a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal" where the puck is under a player in or around the crease area, up to a penalty shot if deemed covered deliberately — 74–87, including 78.5(ix), cited only as a cross-reference: it states the push-in in a shorter form, dropping "by an attacking player" and writing "after making a save", and refers back to 69.7 for the rule; and Reference Table 14 (Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations) · IIHF Official Rule Book 2025/26 (PDF) — Rules 5 (5.1, whose interpretive sentence — "any reference to 'Player' shall refer to both skaters and goalkeepers" — is the NHL's own sentence at its own 5.1, the IIHF capitalising the term it is defining where the NHL does not, and identical in the 2026/27 edition), 9, 10, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 (56.1's Body Position, Free Hand and Stick paragraphs, read 31 August 2026 against the NHL's — the same sentences in the IIHF's pronouns and house quotation marks), 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 (63.2(II), the deliberate limb reaching a "hand, leg, foot, arm, stick etc." from anywhere on the ice and after a stoppage; 63.2(III), the strict-liability limb, which reaches only a player who shoots or bats the puck "(using their hand or stick)" directly out of their defending zone, carves out "except where there is no protective glass" where the NHL writes "no glass", and assesses the penalty "when the puck is shot over the protective glass surrounding the Players' bench" where the NHL writes "'behind'"), 67 (67.2, read 31 August 2026 — the crease escalation the NHL prints as a NOTE under 67.2(ii) is written into the body of the IIHF's 67.2(II) instead), 69 — whose 69.4 carries the same returning-goalkeeper paragraph and its reciprocal in the IIHF's own wording, unchanged across the 2025/26 v1.0 and v1.1 books and the 2026/27 book, and whose 69.7 carries all four of the NHL's limbs at the same number and in the same order, differing only in its capitalised Player, its "goal crease" for the NHL's "crease", quotation marks of its own around "incidental contact" and "Penalty Shot", and its opening "In the event" for the NHL's "In the event that", read 31 August 2026 — 78 (78.5(IX), the disallowed-goal entry for a goalkeeper pushed into the net with the puck "after making a save", which refers back to 69.7), 76, 77, 81, 82 (81.4 and 82.1 read against each other and against their NHL counterparts: 81.4's exception list has four items and 82.1's, restating the same bar, three), 83, 84, 87, 101, and Appendix IV Table 16 (Interference on the Goalkeeper situations) — that is the 2025/26 book's number; the same table is Table 14 in the 2026/27 book · IIHF Situation Handbook 2025/26 (Version 1.1, August 2025) (PDF) — its Foreword, Situations 57.1 to 57.4, the whole of what it publishes on tripping — all four are penalty-shot questions, and none of them reaches the "trip or fall" against "trip and fall" conflict in the rule itself — and Situations 69.1 to 69.6, the whole of what it publishes on Interference on the Goalkeeper, together with Situation 83.34, the airborne clearing case for a delayed off-side — all of those read in what was then the current edition, which gives its own version as 1.0, June 2025. Version 1.1, August 2025 is the current version of that season's book, and it was read here for its Foreword — "in case of any contradictions, the valid IIHF Rulebook is always the basis" — and for Situation 63.19, the puck kicked over the glass while blocking a shot, which v1.1 answers "Yes." with no rule cited where v1.0 answered "No. Rule 63.2 (III) states that the player must have shot or batted the puck using the hand or the stick." Also read in v1.1 for the bench: Situation 63.24, which still assesses the minor where a clear goes over the glass and lands in the Players' Bench, exempting only a puck "shot directly into the Players' Bench (where there is no glass)"; Situation 63.28, the glove scoop over the glass behind the players' bench, "considered shooting or batting the puck with the hand resulting in the puck leaving the playing surface"; and Situation 63.3, exempting a puck that "clears the glass at a point in the Penalty Bench where the glass is lower than the normal height around the rink". Read in both v1.0 and v1.1 for two further answers on the same rule, identical in each: Situation 63.34, the puck kicked over the glass from the defending zone, answered "Yes" with no rule cited, and Situation 63.29, the goalkeeper's stick save that goes over the glass, answered "No … Rule 63.2. talks about deliberate". The two editions were compared in full and differ substantively in four answers; the other three are not cited by this document — Situation 10.7 (nudging a teammate's lost stick along the ice, legal in both editions, v1.1 adding the conditions that the stick be intact and that the nudge not interfere with an opponent), Situation 20.4 (a goal now disallowed where v1.0 allowed it after video review reduced the infraction to a minor) and Situation 46.1 (the on-ice strength after a third-man-in fight). Situations 57.1 to 57.4, 69.1 to 69.6 and 83.34 are unchanged between the editions · IHUK In-House Rules 2025-26, Revision 1 (published 27/10/25) (PDF) — Introduction and Rules 1, 37, 38, 84, 100.1, 200, Section 6 and Appendix 1; the source for the England Ice Hockey amendments above, except the trapezoid suspension, which is in the Rules & Regulations below, and except the face-off and embellishment amendments, which are in the 2026-27 edition beside it · IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27, Revision 1 (published 25 July 2026) — the current British document. Read for its cover page and Introduction, for the new Section 10 – Game Flow amendment to Rule 76 (the immediate replacement of the centre for all violations bar those on post-icing draws, and the free choice of which centre places their stick first), for the new Section 9 amendment to Rule 64 ("Adding a misconduct to a minor. The required call is now 2 plus 10"), for the new Section 3 – Equipment amendment to Rule 10.3 ("Skating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted under IHUK In-House Rules. A player whose stick is broken must drop their stick immediately. Failure to do so will incur a 2min penalty for illegal equipment"* — a skater rule only, with no goalkeeper counterpart in the document), and for the carry-forward of Rules 18, 37, 38, 69.1 and 84 with Appendix 1 and the Section 6 fighting provision. It contains no amendment to Rule 81, Rule 83 or Rule 26, and no mention of the trapezoid or the Elite League · IHUK Junior Ice Hockey Leagues Rules of Competition 2026-2027 (PDF) — read 14 September 2026 for the Game Length & Format table cited in section 10 and for Appendix D, U12 Competition Format & Administration: "No icing calls at U12", the running clock, the 60-second buzzer line change with the puck "left where it is", and the offside limb — "Play does not stop", "Officials call e.g., 'Reds OUT!'", "Failure to retreat quickly = delay of game penalty." A competition regulation rather than a rule book, and this one governs the IHUK junior structure only — it does not settle the EIHL, NIHL National, the PNIHL, the SNL, BUIHA or Scottish domestic competitions outside that structure, and no regulation for any of those was read here · IHUK National League Division 1 and 2 Rules of Competition (PDF) — the NIHL Rules of Competition above, titled for those two divisions on its own first page. Read 22 September 2026 for the Game Length & Format row giving NIHL "3 x 20 minute periods" and "Full ice, checking, stop clock". It reaches Divisions 1 and 2 only, not NIHL National; the PNIHL is named in it and its own regulations were not read here · IHUK Woman’s National Ice Hockey League Rules of Competition 2026-2027 (PDF) — the WNIHL Rules of Competition above; the cover page spells it Woman’s. Read 22 September 2026 for the format table’s two rows — WNIHL U16 "3 x 15 minute periods" and senior WNIHL "3 x 20 minute periods", both "Full ice, non-checking, stop clock" — and for the prose above them making the senior figure compulsory: "All WNIHL league games must be played over 3 x 20-minute periods", with 3 × 15 available only on application to IHUK "[i]n extraordinary circumstances" · IHUK Junior Section- U10 Rules of Competition 2026-2027 (PDF) — the U10 Rules of Competition above; that title, hyphen and all, is its own cover page’s. Read 22 September 2026 for "Bodychecking is NOT allowed in U10 matches" — the only one of the four stating it as a rule rather than as a format label — and for "All Under 10 games must be played on a reduced area ice surface. This is either cross ice or half ice." It publishes an ice-slot length rather than a period length · England Ice Hockey Rules & Regulations 2024-2025 — Rule 22.3, the suspension of the Goalkeepers' Restricted Area · USA Hockey Official Playing Rules 2025-29 (PDF) — Rules 201–205 (including 204(b), read 31 August 2026 — "shall always be at the players' bench and out of the play before any change is made", which writes no distance at all, and which adds the trigger "or causes their team to gain a competitive advantage" that no other book here writes — 204(c) and its exception "when a major or match penalty is imposed in Adult Classifications under Rule 403(d) or 405(a)", 205(a), whose premature goalkeeper substitution carries "no time penalty", and 204(a), read in full on 31 August 2026 for the line-change procedure, the close of the change window and its warn-then-minor delay paragraph — the running head "Teams" is spliced between "the Referee shall warn" and "the offending team" in the extraction, so a whole-phrase grep of that sentence returns nothing), 401, 402–405, 407(c) (the goalkeeper beyond the centre red line — "If a goalkeeper deliberately participates in the play in any manner when they are beyond the center red line, a minor penalty shall be assessed"; the rule prints no determining-factor sentence of its own, which is why the Casebook is cited for it below), 411, 607 (Charging) — read in full for the goalkeeper clauses: 607(c), the minor-plus-misconduct or major-plus-game-misconduct for body checking or charging a goalkeeper "within the goal crease or privileged area", 607(d)'s "not fair game" protection outside it, and its Note 1 (accidental or unavoidable contact routed to the Interference rule, deliberate contact to charging) and Note 2 (the privileged-area construction) — 411, 615 (Fighting) — read in full for a counterpart to the NHL's minor for leaving the immediate vicinity of the crease during an altercation, and it carries one at 615(e): a minor on a player who "fails to move immediately and directly to their players' bench (or goal crease for a goalkeeper) when instructed to do so by the Referee during an altercation", with 615(d) adding a game misconduct on "any player or goalkeeper who is the first to intervene in an altercation then in progress." The book names that clause too: its Summary of Penalties lists "615(e) Leaving crease area during altercation" under Goalkeeper Infractions, and "615(e) Players not going to bench after warning during altercation" under Minor Penalty Personal Fouls. What USA Hockey does not use is the NHL's phrasing — "leaving the crease", "leaving their crease" and "leaving the immediate vicinity" all return nothing against the playing rules, raw and whitespace-flattened, and its own goalkeeper-penalty rule 407 has only its three clauses — but that is a difference of wording and construction, not of whether the offence exists. The Casebook situations cited below apply 615(e); they do not supply it. Also Rules 603 (Boarding, and its (a), (b) and (c) severity limbs), 604 (body checking by classification, read with the Glossary entry Age Classifications, Note 3, read 10 September 2026 — "Adult classifications shall include Adult non-check, Adult U.S., Adult Elite and Adult Women, and shall be governed by these rules, except where otherwise noted" — the only place the book names the adult classifications. ⚠️ It records no share: 604(a) says only that a local governing body "is encouraged to provide Competitive Contact options at all levels of recreational play", and does not record which ones did), 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610 (Delaying the Game — 610(b), the goalkeeper who "has an opportunity to play the puck prior to being pressured … but instead intentionally causes a stoppage of play", and 610(c), a minor on any player or goalkeeper who "delays the game by deliberately shooting or batting the puck outside the playing area, including after a stoppage of play", and 610(g), the bench minor against a team causing delay by making additional substitutions, read 31 August 2026 — and note the lettering, because the Casebook cites this provision as "610(h)" at Situation 15 and elsewhere, and both volumes' Summary of Penalties uses "610(e)" for what the body prints as 610(d): the printed rule runs (a) to (g) and the citations above are the body's lettering), 611, 613, 614, 615, 617 (including 617(c)(4), the two limbs on which a goal is disallowed), 618 (Handling Puck with Hands — 618(a), the closed hand not immediately dropped, which is a stoppage and a last-play face-off; the minor attached instead to picking the puck up off the ice; and the penalty shot, optional minor and awarded goal where a defending player does it in the goal crease), 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625 (625(b), the flat crease bar, its neutral-zone face-off and its push-in relief; 625(a)(8), the minor, which requires physical contact), 628, 630, 631 (631(d), "if the puck is accidentally shot or deflected out of play … a last play face-off will occur in the zone where the puck was shot or the deflection occurred"), 634, 635, 636, 638, 639, 640, the Declaration of Player Safety and Standard of Play front matter — read 1 September 2026 for the charging bullet under Standard of Play and Rule Emphasis – Body Checking, whose Enforcement Standard reads "A player cannot take more than two strides or travel an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent" and then lists among its examples "[a]ccelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent" and "[s]kating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force", neither of which carries a stride count — and Appendix V, the Glossary, read in full — for the entries "Time-Out (Curfew Definition)" and "Altercation", and to establish that it carries no entry for "player" and none for "skater". The Casebook was searched alongside it for an interpretive provision on whether a bare "player" reaches a goalkeeper; neither volume has one · Hockey Canada Playing Rules 2026-2028 (PDF) — Rules 4.8 (and Interpretation 2), 4.13(c) and its Interpretation 2, 6.1 — read 31 August 2026 for 6.1(a)'s "at the Players' Bench (within 3.05m (10 ft.)) and out of play before any change is made" and 6.1(b)'s penalty-bench change, which 6.1(b) prices as "a Minor penalty under Rule 10.4 (a) – Leaving the Players' or Penalty Bench" rather than as a bench minor — with 10.7(a) and its Interpretation 3, which assesses too many players where the goaltender or their replacement plays the puck "regardless of whether or not the goaltender is within the 3.05 m (10 ft.) area", 6.3(e)(i) and its Note 1 — "Referees must penalize any player of either team who deliberately shoots, bats, or throws the puck outside the playing surface, as per Rule 10.1 (ii) – Delay of Game", the book's own cross-reference to that limb, carrying no goaltender exclusion — and 6.4(a), which does carry one for a materially similar act; the five express exclusions were located by searching the whole book, de-hyphenated and whitespace-flattened, for "excluding the goaltender" and "excluding goaltenders", and they sit at 2.4(b) Note 2, 6.2, 6.4(a), 6.7(e)(i) and 10.2. Then 6.7 (including 6.7(c)(iv), the face-off nullification, and Interpretations 1, 5 and 8), 6.11 (and its thirteen Interpretations), and Rule 7.10(a), 7.10(d), 7.10(e)(ii), 7.10(f) and Interpretation 1 to Rule 7.10(a), which between them are Hockey Canada's answer on the goaltender and a crease-side fight. The offence is in the rule text: 7.10(a) reads "A Minor penalty will be assessed to a goaltender who leaves their crease during a fight. This should be recorded on the Official Game Report as 'Leaving the Crease'." 7.10(d) supplies the neutral-location route — "The goaltenders must stay in their goal creases or proceed to a neutral zone designated by the Referee." 7.10(e)(ii) assesses a game misconduct to a player who "joins in a fight or acts as a peacemaker", which the Glossary definition of "PLAYERS" carries to a goaltender — "The goaltender is considered a player, except where explicitly stated because special rules or privileges apply to them" — 7.10(e) stating no such exception. Interpretation 1 then answers the crease-side fight only: asked whether the goaltender may go to the Players' Bench where "a fight occurs in the immediate vicinity of the goal crease", it answers "With the permission of the Referee, the goaltender may proceed to their bench. If they do so on their own accord, they are to be assessed a Minor penalty for leaving their crease during a fight" — the strictest of the four on the narrow question of moving before being told to, where the NHL and IIHF direct the referee to assess no penalty, and USA Hockey's Casebook Situation 26 penalises only a goalkeeper who both lacked permission and "gets involved in the altercation outside of the crease", its Situation 27 answering a flat "Yes." Rule 4.13(c) is the goaltender beyond the centre red line, and it is the one of the four that carries no penalty in its own text: a goaltender who "intentionally participates in the play in any manner when they are beyond the centre red line" "will be penalized under Rule 8.3 (a) – Interference", which was read too and assesses "A Minor penalty … to any player who interferes with an opposing player." Interpretation 2 to Rule 4.13(c) supplies the determining factor and reverses the NHL's: on a goaltender whose skates are over the line playing a puck still on their own side, "the determining factor is the position of the goaltender's skates and not the position of the puck. Assess the goaltender a Minor penalty for Rule 8.3 (a) – Interference." ⚠️ Rule 6.11(b) carries two separate i./ii. lists, so "6.11(b)(ii)" names two different rules: the tag-up clause sits under "The Linesperson will drop their arm to nullify the off-side violation and allow play to continue if" and requires that "all attacking players clear the attacking zone by making skate contact with the blue-line, so that the attacking zone is completely clear of attacking players"; the stop-play clause sits under "During a delayed offside, if" and reaches only an attacker who "touches the puck or attempts to gain possession of a loose puck while the puck is still in the attacking zone", with no pressure limb and no contact limb. The disallowed goal is the first item of that second list, with its Note 1; the intentional off-side is 6.11(d). Rule 6.11 carries no category or division clause anywhere. Then 6.17, 7.1 (and Interpretations 1 and 2), 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 (and Interpretations 1 and 2), 7.5 (and Interpretations 1, 2 and 3), 7.6 (and Interpretation 2), 7.7 (and Interpretations 1 and 3), 7.8, 7.9, 8.1, 8.2 (and Interpretation 1), 8.5 (Interference with the Goaltender, and its Interpretations 1, 2 and 3 with Note 1; its opening paragraph, which acknowledges that "incidental contact with the goaltender may occur" and puts the onus on the attacking player; its Protection of the Goaltender paragraph, which reaches unnecessary contact "anywhere on the ice"; and its penalty limbs 8.5(a)–(e) — the minor at (a); at (b) a major and game misconduct at the referee's discretion "based on the degree of violence of impact" and mandatorily — "will be assessed" — for a player who "charges the goaltender" (Note 1 referring the definition to Rule 7.4(b) Interpretation 2) and for one who "injures an opponent by an Interference with the Goaltender infraction that would otherwise call for a Minor penalty"; at (c) a match penalty; at (d) the bar on any misconduct; at (e) the automatic game misconduct on any 8.5(b) major), 8.6 (and Interpretations 1 and 2), 8.7 (and Interpretation 1), 8.8 (and Interpretation 1), 9.1 (and Interpretation 1), 9.2 (and Interpretations 1 and 2), 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 (and its Interpretations), 3.2 (Lost or Broken Sticks, and Interpretation 1 to 3.2(c)), 10.1 (Delay of Game — its preamble, which reaches a player or team who "deliberately causes a stoppage of play or delays the restart of play"; 10.1(ii), a player who "deliberately shoots, bats, or throws the puck outside the playing surface"; 10.1(v), a goaltender "who shoots or bats the puck directly out of the playing surface, with their stick", which carries no deliberateness word of its own; and 10.1(vi), "A goaltender who deliberately drops or throws the puck onto the top or back of the goal netting causing a stoppage of play" — all thirteen numbered limbs and the unnumbered Players' Bench paragraph were read, and (ii) and (vi) are the only two that say "throws", (ii) alone reaching a puck thrown out of the playing surface; and 10.1(a), the minor on a player who "in the opinion of the Referee, is deliberately delaying the game". All twelve of its Interpretations were read — every one of them written to 10.1(a) — and none of them is on the question whether 10.1(v) reaches a goaltender who puts the puck out without meaning to; Interpretation 3 is about freezing the puck, and Interpretation 5, the only one whose subject is this limb — "Clarifications as it pertains to goaltenders shooting or batting the puck directly out of play" — gives the goaltender's escapes as the absence of glass, a puck that "touches the glass or deflects off a player or official", and a rink whose two ends are not similar, and not the absence of intent), 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 11.1, and the Glossary definition of "altercation" (also at Rule 7.10); read for the offside, icing, checking-from-behind, head-contact, goaltender-interference and tripping comparisons above. Both the USA Hockey and Hockey Canada books were also searched in full for a provision on screening the goaltender or obstructing the goaltender's vision: USA Hockey has none — its 625(a)(1) screen is one set on a skater — and Hockey Canada's only two, in Rule 8.5's crease paragraph and in Interpretation 3, both reach a player in the crease · USA Hockey Official Rules and Casebook 2025-29 (PDF) — Casebook situations for Rule 204, Situations 7, 8, 10 and 11, read 31 August 2026 — 7 binds goalkeepers to the same "at the bench" test as everyone else; 8 penalises a change in which neither player played the puck or made contact because "Team A gained a territorial or positional advantage as a result of the change"; 10 keeps a youth team short-handed until the penalised player has left the penalty bench by way of the ice; 11 lets an adult team send a player straight from the players' bench after a major or match — and Rule 205, Situation 1, which calls the goalkeeper who turns back to defend after their replacement is in the play "too many players on the ice" rather than premature substitution; and situations for Rules 301, 407, 601, 602, 604, 605, 607, 608 — including Situation 5, which allows that a goalkeeper outside the privileged area "can be legally checked" — only where Rule 604 permits body checking at all — while permitting an attacker to "physically engage" only "When the goalkeeper has possession of the puck" and requiring a penalty for "any avoidable contact" once they are no longer in control of it, and Situation 6, which puts the privileged area as extending "to the closer end boards" — and Rule 608, Situation 1, read 31 August 2026, which names two situations in which the minor plus misconduct "must be assessed" and lists the three instances in which the major plus game misconduct or the match penalty "must be called" — 613, 615, 620, 623, 624, 625, 630 and 639 — including Rule 613, Situations 13 and 15, the line-change violations, read 31 August 2026 — including all seventeen under Rule 625, read in full for a screening or goaltender-vision provision, of which they have none, and among them Situation 9, which supplies the limit on 625(b)'s goalkeeper-out carve-out: the goal stands where the goalkeeper is "completely out of their crease", "However, if the goalkeeper is attempting to return to the goal crease and there is any interference by the attacking player who prevents the goalkeeper from making a play, then the goal must be disallowed and an interference penalty shall be assessed", and Situation 12, read 31 August 2026, which disallows a goal scored on a one-second rebound with a teammate still in the crease — "[a]t the time the shot was taken, an attacking player was illegally in the crease" — and is the nearest thing either amateur book has to an answer on a rebound, though it answers the position bar rather than a contact question — including Rule 407, Situation 13, which supplies the determining-factor test the playing rule itself omits: asked whether it is legal for a goalkeeper "whose skates are beyond the center red line to play the puck which is still on the same side of center red line as the goal they are defending", it answers "No" and rules that "in this situation the determining factor is the position of the goalkeeper's skates and not the puck", the opposite of the NHL's and the IIHF's express test; and Rule 407, Situation 12, the accidental case — a goalkeeper on the way to the bench, beyond the red line, "accidentally struck by the puck" — answered "No", because "the goalkeeper is not considered to be participating in the play if the puck contact was accidental." Those are the only two situations the Casebook prints under 407(c). Also Rule 615, Situations 10, 26 and 27, which are where USA Hockey works out how 615(e) applies to a goalkeeper during an altercation: Situation 10 assesses "a minor penalty for leaving the crease, plus a game misconduct for being the first to intervene in an altercation" (Rule References 615(a, d and e)); Situation 26 answers "No" to a penalty where an altercation occurs in the vicinity of the crease and the goalkeeper leaves "to remain out of the altercation", directing the referee to send them "to their players' bench or at least away from the altercation" but adding that "if the Referee does not give their permission and the goalkeeper gets involved in the altercation outside of the crease, the minor penalty must be assessed"; and Situation 27 answers "Yes" to whether a goalkeeper may go to their own players' bench when a fight occurs in the immediate vicinity of the crease. Also read: Appendix VI, the Standard of Play Casebook, and Rule 630, Situation 41, which disallows any goal during a delayed off-side, own goals included and tag-up notwithstanding, and gives its rule reference as 630(d.3), a sub-clause the printed Rule 630(d) does not contain, and Rule 630, Situation 39, which directs the linesperson to stop play immediately where offside players "continue in pursuit of the puck" because "[t]he potential for unnecessary body contact should not be allowed in a situation where an infraction (offside) has already occurred" — the reason the negative above is stated about the rules and not about the books — and which carries its own exception where a defender will plainly reach a loose puck first and can advance it out of the zone — together with Rule 601, Situation 23 (biting a Linesperson), Rule 602, Situation 3 and Rule 615, Situation 3 (biting an opponent — a match penalty under 602(a), and during a fight stacked with the fighting major and game misconduct under 615(a)), Rule 604, Situation 2 (the competitive-contact test), Rule 605, Situations 1, 2, 3 and 5 with Rule 301, Situation 6 (the broken stick, the safety purpose the Casebook gives the drop-it rule, and which stick a goalkeeper may take once theirs has gone), Rule 607, Situation 2 (the charge on an unsuspecting opponent), Rule 620, Situation 1 (the force needed for head contact), Rule 639, Situations 1 and 5 (the stumble that never becomes a fall; ducking as clipping, and the floor for slew footing), and — for the stick lift — Appendix VI, Standard of Play Casebook, Situation 2, which permits it "at any time provided they do not impede their progress" and calls it "a good defensive play", read with Rule 623, Situation 1, which first rules that a player who "hooks the stick of another player causing them to lose possession of the puck" has committed a penalty. Read in full for a screening or goaltender-vision provision, for a checker's amnesty against an opponent with their head down, and for a crouching clause: it contains none of the three. Where it speaks to the second of those it runs the other way, at Rule 620, Situation 1 and Rule 607, Situation 2. ⚠️ And it is where USA Hockey's fend-off permission is written, at Casebook – Standard of Play, Situation 6, read 31 August 2026 — "[a] player who is in control of the puck is allowed to use a free hand to maintain body position that they legally established… 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." An anchored search of the playing-rules volume returns no occurrence of "fend" at all, so searching the playing rules for the NHL's phrase finds nothing in a book that grants the same thing on conditions — search it by concept, or in the Casebook. Rule 621, Situations 1 to 15 were read in full on 1 September 2026: Situation 2 answers "No." to "Must contact with an opponent occur in order for the Referee to assess a penalty for high sticking?" and adds that "[i]t is not a requirement that a stick make contact above shoulder height for high sticking to be called", neither of which the playing rule's 621 Note says; Situation 1 routes a stick to the head "during the process of delivering a check" to Rule 620 Head Contact; Situation 3 confirms the 621(b) and 621(c) tiers; and Situations 4 to 15 are all 621(d), high-sticking the puck.*

Helmet removal in an altercation — the four books, read 1 September 2026: NHL Official Rules 2025-2026 — Rule 46.6 Helmets (the minor for unsportsmanlike conduct, and "Helmets that come off in the course of and resulting from the altercation will not result in a penalty to either player"), with 9.6 and 51.1–51.2, which are where the roughing minor for removing an opponent's helmet "during play" is written · IIHF Official Rulebook 2025/26 (Version 1.1) — Rule 46.12 Helmets, and 51.1–51.2 · IIHF Official Rule Book 2026/27 (Version 1.0) — Rule 46.6 Helmets, the same clause renumbered and reading "a two minute minor penalty" where the 2025/26 text reads "a minor penalty"; Rule 51 is word for word identical in the two editions, compared 1 September 2026 · USA Hockey 2025-29 Official Playing Rules — Rule 615(c), read in full: its four paragraphs are the two match penalties (own helmet "prior to", opponent's "prior to or during"), the game misconduct with the two-game suspension, and the game misconduct for a helmet not worn as designed. Rule 640 was searched for a helmet clause and has none, so USA Hockey's roughing rule carries no counterpart to NHL and IIHF 51.1 · USA Hockey Official Rules and Casebook 2025-29 — Rule 615, Situations 12 to 21 and the Note applying to Situations 14-20, read in full. Note the lettering, because Rule 610's does not hold here: the Casebook's printed Rule 615 runs (a) to (f) exactly as the Playing Rules volume does, and its situations cite 615(a), (c), (d) and (e) consistently with it, so the one-letter offset disclosed above for 610 does not affect 615. Two of the book's own Summary of Penalties entries do disagree with each other — 615(c) is printed under "Match Penalty Option" as "Deliberately removing helmet during altercation" and again under "Match Penalty (only)" as "Removing helmet prior to or during an altercation" — so nothing here rests on the summary tables; the tiers above are taken from the rule text and the situations · Hockey Canada Playing Rules 2026-2028 — Rule 10.6 Illegal Equipment: 10.6(d)'s misconduct for undoing a chinstrap to incite, 10.6(f)(iii) and (iv)'s Gross Misconducts, and Interpretation 15 to Rule 10.6(f)(iii)(iv), which handles the case where nobody removed anything deliberately — no further penalty for an incidental removal, a double minor under 7.1 for grabbing a helmet without gaining an advantage, and a match penalty under 7.1(c)(iv) where it is used "to gain an advantage or to inflict punishment". Rule 4.9(a) supplies what a Gross Misconduct is. Rules 7.9 (Roughing) and 7.10 (Fighting) were read for a helmet clause and have none.

Rule change history: Scouting The Refs – NHL Rule Book Updates for 2025-26 · USA Hockey – 2025-29 Playing Rule Change Summary (PDF) — "Effective August 1, 2025"; the former usahockey.com/2025-29-usah-rule-changes page returned 404 on 21 August 2026 · USA Hockey – Rule Book & Resources · IIHF – New Rule Book for global game — the IIHF's own announcement, 5 June 2021, that it would "introduce a new Rule Book for the 2021/22 season", listing among the rules to be integrated "A restricted area for goalkeepers behind the net to create more offensive play (i.e. trapezoid familiar to NHL and KHL)". It dates the IIHF's adoption of the trapezoid, and it is the only support held here for the KHL — a governing body's aside rather than a KHL rule. Nothing held here dates the NHL's own adoption

Icing rule variants and adoption dates: Icing (ice hockey) — Wikipedia

Why ducking is dangerous (the anatomy behind every "never duck" above): USA Hockey — Heads Up Hockey Program Guide (PDF) — "How spinal injuries happen in hockey", refetched and the quoted strings located in the extracted text on 29 August 2026. The finding beneath the mechanism is a restatement, not USA Hockey's own research: the page credits "research done among a wide range of hockey players" and prints the citation under it — Charles H. Tator et al., Spinal Injuries Due To Hockey, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 11:34–41 — which has not been read in the original here, only the USA Hockey page reproducing it. Body Contact and Battles carries the fuller treatment.

Rec-league rules: CARHA Hockey Official Rule Book, printed 2020 (PDF) — Rules 19(b) — "at the players' bench (within 10 ft (3.05 m)) and out of play before any change is made", read 31 August 2026 — 34, 40 (Appointment of Officials, read 1 September 2026 — 40(a)'s crew of two Referees, one Official Scorer, one Game Timekeeper, one Penalty Timekeeper and two Goal Judges, and 40(d)'s equal authority and closest-Referee tiebreak; with Rule 41(d), which has the Referees stop play "for any other infractions of the rules. (e.g. icing the puck, offsides, etc.)", and the Glossary entries "On-Ice Officials" — "[t]he Referees", no linesperson among them — and "Off-Ice Officials", which between them put five of those seven off the ice. The whole book was searched for "Linesman", "Linesmen", "linesman" and "linesperson", raw and whitespace-flattened: exactly one hit, the icing signal on p.82 of the Referee's Signals section, which Rule 40 does not provide for), 41(e) (the Referee's final decision on a disputed goal, which is the book's only goal adjudication — it writes no video review and no coach's challenge), 49, 51, read 23 September 2026 — 51(b)'s minor on a player who receives a stick “thrown on the ice from any part of the rink”, and 51(c)'s “A goalkeeper may not continue to play with a broken stick of any kind”, 50 (Head Contact) and 62 (High Sticks), read 2 September 2026 — 62 read as a window, because a page banner splits the rule between 62(b) and the Note that escalates it: 62(a)'s minor for a player who "checks an opponent or intimidates an opponent while carrying their stick above the waist height of their opponent", which requires no contact at all and is not a lower rung of (b); 62(b)'s major for contact above the shoulders "whether or not injury results"; its Note adding "a Game Misconduct under Rule 30" where the contact was intentional and withholding it for an accidental high stick "except when injury results"; 62(c)'s match penalty; and 62(d), the puck rule. Rule 30(a), read the same day, is what that Note points at — any major is "ruled off the ice for the remainder of the game (Major penalty plus Game Misconduct)", and its own Note names the accidental high stick as "[t]he only exception to this rule" in the book, 57 (Face-offs, read 1 September 2026 — 57(a)'s ejection of the draw-taker for a teammate's encroachment, and 57(d)'s discretionary minor for a second violation in the same face-off), 58(b) (the goalkeeper's freezing limit, read 1 September 2026 as a line range across a page break; the book carries no trapezoid and no goalkeeper restricted area — searched for "trapezoid", "restricted area" and "privileged", all zero, and by concept for any limit on where the goalkeeper may play the puck — so 58(b) limits freezing the puck, not playing it), 59, 65 (including 65(d), the shorthanded nullification, unqualified by classification, 65(e), the face-off nullification, and Note 2 to 65(a)), 52 and 66 (Charging, and Interference/Protection of the Goalkeeper, read 23 September 2026 — 52(b) and its Note, 66(a)(1) with Note 1, 66(b) in full and 66(e). The book was searched, whitespace-flattened, for a returning-goalkeeper clause, a privileged area, and a rebound or loose-puck carve-out to the goalkeeper-contact rule: none is written, and the book's own Case Situations section does not settle any of them — its two situations under Rule 66, read 23 September 2026, cover slashing a stick out of an opponent's hands and disallowing a goal for an attacker who interferes in the crease. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume exists on disk), 72 (Off-sides, read 22 September 2026 — 72(c) and its Note 1, quoted above. The whole book was searched for "plane", raw and whitespace-flattened: zero hits, and the book's own Case Situations section carries one situation under Rule 72, read 23 September 2026 — a player propelling the puck who skates backwards over the attacking blue line, ruled legal with possession and control — which does not reach the airborne skate. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume exists on disk or is cited here, so its silence on the airborne skate is reported as silence and resolved neither way), 73, 79, 52(a) and its Note, 49(b) and its Note, 63 and 71, read 1 October 2026 — with Rule 32(a), the three-penalty ejection toward which 49(b)'s Note counts a double minor as two, 84 (including 84(f), the mercy rule), 85 (Tied Game, read 3 September 2026 — 85(a)'s tie with the points shared, 85(b)'s unexpired penalties carrying into overtime and 85(c)'s shoot-out eligibility) and Section Seven (Tournament General Rules) items 16 and 21, together with that section's Scoring & Tie Breakers tie-break paragraphs (read 3 September 2026 — the 5-minute 4-on-4 sudden-victory round-robin period and the 5-minute 5-on-5 semi-final and final period with its best-of-3 and then sudden-death shoot-out) and the Glossary entry Game, quoted from the rulebook text · ASHL (Adult Safe Hockey League) Rule Book, Fall 2025 update (PDF) and ASHL — Rule Book

Women's professional — offside and goalkeeper interference, read 22 and 23 September 2026: PWHL Official Rule Book 2025-2026 (PDF) — Rule 85.1, quoted above for the plane test and the "blade of the skate only" definition. The PWHL renumbers heavily against the NHL (offside 83→85, icing 81→83, handling the puck 67→69, diving 64→66), so searching it by an NHL rule number finds nothing. Goalkeeper interference is Rule 71, not 69: 71.1 to 71.7 carry the NHL's Rule 69 in the feminine, and its own Table 14 prints the same five screening situations, all read on 23 September 2026. Its departures from the NHL are 71.5, "Coach's Challenge — Not applicable", the "Central Situation Room Review" in 71.1, and 71.7's cross-reference to "Rule 65.7 – Awarded Goal" where the NHL points at Rule 63. Also read in it on 23 September 2026, for the exclusivity claims on this page: 10.3 and 10.4 (broken stick — the same three replacement routes as the NHL, but no penalty sentence for a stick thrown or shot to a teammate, and none for one thrown to the goalkeeper), 58.1 (the accidental-trip exemption in the NHL's two sentences), 65.2(iii) (the strict-liability puck-over-the-glass limb), 65.8 and 89.1 (no line change and no time-out after a goalkeeper freezes a shoot-in from beyond the centre red line), 78.5 (the face-off hand bar), 83.1 (“Gaining the line”), 83.3 and 83.5 (the goalkeeper wave-off, the “before or after crossing the goal line” touch and the dislodge-from-the-net limb, read 30 September 2026), 85.3 (the delayed-offside triggers, “about to make physical contact with the defending puck carrier” among them) and 85.4 (the delayed-offside own-goal exception). Nothing beyond those and Rule 71 has been read in this book for this page, and it is a single league's book rather than a general standard. ⚠️ Dating caution recorded with the source: eleven pages of the PDF carry the prior season's running header; the edition is taken from the title page, and the offside rule sits on p.132, which is not one of them.

The wave-off list in section 3 — its scope, read in the primary texts on 15 September 2026. The list is the NHL's Rule 81, and it is presented as the NHL's. Each item carries the books it was read in. The shorthanded item is set out book by book in the paragraphs under the list and quoted in full in section 6. The face-off item is NHL Rule 81.5 and IIHF Rule 81.5 — the same sentence, and word for word in the IIHF's 2025/26 Version 1.1 and 2026/27 editions — with Hockey Canada Rule 6.7(c)(iv), USA Hockey Rule 624(b)(3) and CARHA Rule 65(e), each quoted in the body. ⚠️ Four of those five print the limiting word directly; USA Hockey does not. The whole of its Rule 624 was read on 15 September 2026 and the word appears nowhere in it — 624(b)(3) ties the carve-out to the puck travelling the length of the ice "as a result of" a taker instead — which is why the body names the split rather than claiming a word all five share. USA Hockey's own Official Rules and Casebook 2025-29, at Rule 624 Situation 15, read the same day, supplies the reading its rule text leaves open: icing is nullified only where "the puck must receive its impetus from the initial stick contact on the face-off", and a centre who touches the puck on the draw, gains possession an instant later and shoots the length of the ice is iced. ⚠️ What no book of the five settles in terms is a puck that clips a stick after leaving the draw; the body tells the reader to treat any other touch as ending the carve-out, which is the strict reading and the one that cannot cost them, and does not claim the point is decided. ⚠️ Hockey Canada prints face-off hyphenated and broken across a line there, so a text extraction that discards the line break renders it faceoff — the hyphen is the book's. The other items were read across the five books on 15 September 2026, and each prints what was found. Items 6 and 7 are in all five — NHL and IIHF Rule 81.5, USA Hockey 624(b)(5) and 624(b)(2), Hockey Canada 6.7(c)(iii) and 6.7(c)(v), CARHA 65(f) and Note 3 to 65(a) — with Hockey Canada's line-change half in Interpretation 7 to 6.7(c)(iii) rather than in the rule. Items 3 and 4 turn on a timing word: "at any time before or after crossing the goal line" is NHL and IIHF 81.5 and PWHL 83.5 alone, against USA Hockey 624(b)(4)'s "prior to" (with the Rule 624 Note completing the icing at the goal line), Hockey Canada 6.7(c)(i)'s "at any time prior to", and CARHA 65(g)(1), which writes no moment while its 65(g)(2) writes "at any time before" for the goalkeeper. Item 5 is NHL and IIHF 81.3, and PWHL 83.3; Hockey Canada 6.7(c) has no goalkeeper limb, 6.7(e)(vi) supplies a narrower one inside hybrid icing "[i]n categories of U18AAA, Junior, and at the option of the Member in Senior", and Interpretation 8 to 6.7(c)(iii) rules ICING on the same facts outside those categories; CARHA 65 has none. Item 8 adds Hockey Canada's Rule 6.7 preamble and CARHA 65(a)'s hand-bat/kick carve-out. Item 9 was found in NHL and IIHF 81.5 (and PWHL 83.5) only: USA Hockey Rule 624, Hockey Canada Rule 6.7 and CARHA Rule 65 were each read end to end the same day and none contains a counterpart. Item 10 adds CARHA 65(a)'s "[a]ny contact with the puck over the centre red line" and 65(b)'s blue-line variant. ⚠️ What has not been done is a clause-by-clause reading of all five icing rules against one another, so an item that does not name a book means the provision was not found, not that the book lacks one. Faceoffs is the owner of the face-off item and carries it in full.

The check finished after the puck is gone — the five books, read in the primary text on 24 September 2026. The window is quoted from Hockey Canada Rule 8.3, whose opening list makes a "late hit" limb (ii) and whose preamble then defines it, IIHF 56.1 with its Appendix II Late-hit entry, NHL 56.1 and PWHL 57.1 (the same sentence in the feminine), and the USA Hockey Official Rules and Casebook 2025-29, Standard of Play Situations 10 and 23, Playing Rules Situation 3, and the Declaration of Player Safety in the same volume’s preface. ⚠️ Situation 10 cites no rule of its own, and what decides whether the permitted check exists at all is Rule 604 — 604(a) bars body checking at 12 & under and below, in all Girls’/Women’s classifications and all non-check adult ones, and 604(b) bars it for the fixture whenever a Competitive Contact team meets a Body Checking team. CARHA Hockey writes no late-hit rule and no window, and that is the opposite of a permission. Its Rule 66(a) Note 1 makes the last player to touch the puck the player in possession, and 66(a)(1) reaches only an opponent "who is not in possession of the puck" — but what the NHL and the PWHL add there — that the player deemed in possession "may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession", the IIHF granting the same check in its own words — CARHA simply omits, so what is missing is the authorisation and not the limit. The book prices the body check itself instead: Rule 49(a), a minor or major at the Referee’s discretion for intentional body contact with no possession, timing or vulnerability condition in it and a mandatory major where injury results, its only carve-out 49(c) being "accidental contact"; the Case Situation under Rule 49 answers a bodycheck "at centre ice" with "A Minor or Major Penalty" and states nothing about the puck. 52(a)’s Note makes more than two strides a charge, 53(a) puts a game misconduct in both of its limbs for a hit from behind "anywhere on the ice" and 53(b) a match penalty where the player is driven from behind "into the boards or goal net", 49(b) makes a hit into the boards a double minor at the floor, and 27(b) assesses penalties "regardless of whether or not play is in progress". Rule 46 was read in full on 24 September 2026, preamble and clauses (a) to (i), and not one of them names physical contact, so it does not reach the act on its terms — though its bare term "unsportsmanlike conduct" is undefined in the book, which is not the same as saying no referee would ever use it.

The crease line — the §Goaltender interference and §Screening is legal outside the crease passages, the Common Mistakes bullet on screening and Key Takeaway 9: read in the primary texts on 18 September 2026 and quoted from them. IIHF Rule 1.7 — "In front of each goal frame, one goal crease shall be marked by a red line. The marked line belongs to the Goal Crease." USA Hockey, the Note to Rule 625(b) — "The goal crease area shall include all the space outlined by the semi-circular crease lines (including crease lines) and extending vertically to the level of the top of the goal frame" — with its separate Official Rules and Casebook answering the question in terms at Rule 103, Situation 4: "Is the two inch red line outlining the goal crease considered to be a part of the goal crease? Yes. Rule Reference 103(b)." Hockey Canada, its Glossary entry for GOAL CREASE — "The lines of the crease are considered part of the crease." CARHA Hockey, its Glossary entry for CREASES — "The lines which designate these areas are to be considered as part of the creases." ⚠️ The NHL writes no such sentence, and neither do the two books that copy its crease wording — the PWHL's and CARHA's Rule 5(c). CARHA settles it in its Glossary instead; the NHL and the PWHL leave it unsaid. Its Rule 1.7 says only that the goal crease area "shall include all the space outlined by the crease lines and extending vertically four feet (4') to the level of the top of the goal frame", and its Reference Table 14, Situation 5 E allows the goal where an attacking player "plants himself on the crease line or outside the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored" — as does IIHF Appendix IV, Table 16, Situation 5 E in its own pronouns ("plants themself", "their ability"), numbered Table 16 in the 2025/26 book and Table 14 in the 2026/27 one. The PWHL reproduces the same row in the feminine — "An attacking player plants herself on the crease line or outside the goal crease", answered "Goal is allowed." — and its crease rule copies the NHL’s wording, so it lands with the NHL on both counts. So the IIHF book answers the same play in two directions, and the instruction above to stay off the line rests on the other three books' wording — it is deliberately more conservative than the NHL's own table.

Elite League — Motorpoint EIHL Casebook 26-27, Version 1.1 (8 September 2026) (PDF), linked from the EIHL Casebook page — read 22 September 2026 for its scope paragraph (“For all rules not mentioned in the EIHL Casebook, the official 2026 - 2027 IIHF Rulebook and IIHF Situation Handbook will serve as the official ruling”) and its Rule 41 Boarding, Rule 42 Charging and Rule 42 Elbowing entries — the last of those headed “RULE 42 – ELBOWING” in the Casebook’s own numbering, which is its slip and not this document’s. Its Rule 64 Diving / Embellishment entry was added to that reading on 22 September 2026, in full, and the whole document was read on 22 September 2026 for the comparison table in section 10: its Preamble, its Rule 9.5 and 9.12 equipment escalations, its Rule 10.5–10.7 stick-measurement entries, its Rule 37 and 38 video-review and Coach's Challenge entries, its Rule 46 fighting scheme with the Fines and Suspensions and Automatic Supplementary Discipline ladders, its Rule 77.2, its Rule 84.1 and 84.4, and its Section 11, which reads “Not applicable to EIHL Competition”. Every claim above about what it does not contain rests on that full read: the document carries twenty-two rule numbers and no Rule 27, 43, 48, 60, 74, 76, 81 or 83, searched both by heading and by concept with spacing stripped. ⚠️ The file the League serves under that “Version 1.1” link carries “SECTION D VERSION 1.0 010826” on every page of its own footer, so the version stamp on the download and the one inside it do not agree; the quoted text above is what the served file says. ⚠️ The same Preamble also says interpretations are issued during the season — “Each rule update will be sent by email, on the EIHL web site and in print” — so the copy read here may since have been added to, and the edition answer it supplies is the answer as that copy states it. Equipment and neck protection are in Equipment.

Competition-regulation note — the four IHUK Rules of Competition cited above are competition regulations rather than rule books, and ⚠️ each binds only the competitions it names. The Junior Ice Hockey Leagues Rules of Competition 2026-2027 was read in the primary text on 16 September 2026; the National League Division 1 and 2, Woman’s National Ice Hockey League and U10 regulations on 22 September 2026. The U12 provisions quoted above are its Appendix D – U12 Competition Format & Administration, together with the format table that sends the U12 game there; nothing else in the document is reproduced here. ⚠️ IHUK revises these regulations in place, at unchanged web addresses, so a copy saved from a previous season may no longer be what that address serves — and the later date is not reliably the current one, because this publisher has rolled revisions of these documents backwards. All four addresses were re-fetched on 22 September 2026 and checked by SHA-256 against the copies read for this document: the Junior and U10 regulations are identical, while the NIHL and WNIHL addresses served an earlier revision than the copy read here. Both revisions of both were compared, and every sentence quoted above appears word for word in each, so no quotation here turns on which one you open. UK and England Rules carries the link, the U12 and U10 formats in full, and the other three Rules of Competition read for this corpus.

The empty penalty box on a major — the five books and their sanctions, read in the primary text on 14 September 2026. NHL Rules 19.2, 19.4, 20.2, 20.3, 21.2, 22.3, 81.6 and 68.1 with 68.2 — 68.2 being the NHL's own bench minor for the same failure, "[a]ny violation of this provision shall be treated as an illegal substitution under this rule calling for a bench minor penalty", and its index entry "failure to put substitute in for major penalty", which points at 68.2 and also at 20.2, a rule about being short-handed that does not touch substitution. IIHF (2025/26 Version 1.1 and 2026/27 alike) Rules 8.1, 19.2, 20.3, 68.1 and 68.2 — whose closing sentence is the NHL's word for word, the two 68.2s differing on the deadline and on penalty box for penalty bench and nothing else material; the identity was tested by searching that sentence in the flattened text of all three books. With the IIHF Situation Handbook 2025/26 (Version 1.1) Situation 68.5. USA Hockey Rules 204(c), 206(d), 403(c), 403(d), 404(a) and 405(a), its Summary of Penalties (which files 204(c) and 206(d) under Bench Minor Penalty, files nothing against 403(d), and omits 404(a) although 404(a) writes a bench minor for illegal substitution in its own text — which is why that list is used above as a finding aid and not as the scope of a rule), and its Casebook at Rule 204, Situations 10 and 11 and Rule 403, Situation 3. Hockey Canada Rules 4.1(b), 4.4(a) and 4.5(a) with Note 1 to 4.5(c), and Rules 4.7(a) and 4.7(b) and Interpretation 12 to Rule 10.6(a), read 15 September 2026, which are where that book does write "immediately", so the absence above belongs to 4.4(a) and 4.1(b) and not to the book. CARHA Rules 27(d), 29(b), 30(a) and 30(b) — read for a sanction and a timing word, and neither is written in them — with Rules 31(a) and 32(a), read the same day, both of which do write "immediately" on other penalties, so again the silence is Rule 30(a)'s and not the book's; whether either reaches 30(a)'s Major-plus-Game-Misconduct facts is not resolved here. No separate CARHA casebook or interpretation volume is held here — the book's own Case Situations section, read 23 September 2026, prints situations under Rules 19(f), 28(d), 49, 51, 61, 62, 65, 66, 72, 84, 85 and 86(b), and nothing under Rule 30 — which is why that book is left unsettled above rather than resolved either way. ⚠️ Three further NHL rules were read the same day — 19.4, 21.2 and 22.3: 22.3 repeats 68.2's deadline for a major taken with a misconduct ("before the major penalty expires") and attaches no sanction of its own; 21.2 puts a designated match-penalty server in the box "immediately"; and 19.4 — scoped to the last five minutes of regulation and to overtime, on a coincidental-penalty differential — has the replacement seated "prior to expiration of the penalty" on a major and "immediately" "[i]n the case of a match penalty". None of the three changes the deadline stated above for the ordinary case.

Verification notes

Unverified: the "typical rec / beer league" column in section 10 remains a generalisation — CARHA Hockey and the ASHL publish real rulebooks and are cited above, but no document governs rec hockey as a whole, and neither book applies to a league that has not adopted it. The length of each overtime period in an IIHF gold-medal game is not stated in IIHF Rule 84.6: the rule specifies the numerical strength (three skaters and a goalkeeper), the 15-minute intermissions and the changing of ends, but gives no period duration, in contrast to Rule 84.5, which sets the playoff, relegation-round, classification-round and bronze-medal overtime at "not more than 10 minutes" and has the clock "reset to 10:00 minutes". The figure is simply not in the book, so none is given.

Scope of two negatives about the NHL book, read 14 September 2026. The NHL rulebook writes neither "reckless" nor "careless" anywhere — zero hits for both, case-insensitively, in the plain and the -layout extractions of the 2025-2026 book and of the superseded 2024-2025 one, against 1,306 hits for "penalty" and 103 for "deliberat" in the same files as positive controls. That is why nothing above glosses the NHL's Rule 48 minor as a "merely reckless" hit: the contrast the book itself draws is with a player who "attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent", and that is the wording used. The word belongs to the other three books, where it runs the other way — the IIHF glossary defines Reckless Endangerment as acts creating "a substantial risk of serious physical injury", the accused "not required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions", identically in its 2025/26 v1.1 and 2026/27 editions; USA Hockey groups "dangerous, careless or reckless (unacceptable)" as one band in its Standard of Play. Second, the shorthanded icing exemption above was re-derived against all five books on the same day, and the 5-on-3 case is stated because none of the five makes the expiry of one penalty end an exemption that a second penalty is still earning: the test each book writes is the on-ice count (NHL 81.6 and 16.2, IIHF 81.6 and its glossary entries Numerical Strength and Short-handed, USA Hockey 624(b)(1), Hockey Canada 6.7(b) with Interpretations 2 and 3 and its glossary, CARHA 65(d)), and the box-sitting limb is singular in every one of them — the penalized player in NHL and IIHF 81.6, USA Hockey 624(b)(1) and Hockey Canada's Note 1 to 6.7(b), and a penalized player "after their penalty has expired" in CARHA's Note 2 to 65(a). Each is about the player whose own time is up, and none of them reaches a teammate serving a live penalty. ⚠️ CARHA writes the head count and the box-sitting limb but no instant-of-judgement sentence, and no release-before-expiry relief clause — "instant the penalty" returns zero from the whole book, where "instant the puck is shot" returns 65(d). So 65(d) is cited above for the test and Note 2 to 65(a) for who counts in it, and neither is cited for timing. Note 2 breaks "numer-ical" across a line, so a phrase grep for "numerical strength" misses it.

Scope of one negative — the face-off hand bar, 28 August 2026. The note to NHL and IIHF Rule 67.2, printed again at Rule 76.5, suspends the catch-and-knock-it-down permission for the two players taking a draw until a third player has touched the puck. No counterpart to it was found in USA Hockey or Hockey Canada — but that is a search result, not an established absence. What was searched: USA Hockey Rule 613 (Face-Off Procedures) and Rule 618 (Handling Puck with Hands), and Hockey Canada Rule 6.2 (Face-off Procedure) with its Interpretation 1, each read in full; then both books flattened to whitespace-normalised text and searched for "third player", "has at least touched", "until such time" and "players involved in the actual"; for every sentence containing both a face-off term and "hand", "bat" or "glove"; for every sentence pairing "centre" or "center" with "hand" or "bat"; and for every sentence naming the players "taking the face-off" or "facing off". Nothing in either book restricts the takers' hands. Re-run 2 September 2026 with the USA Hockey Casebook added, which the search above did not cover: the same terms over all three flattened volumes return the Casebook's Rule 613 face-off situations, its hand-pass situations at Rule 618 and a "third player" entering an altercation, and no counterpart. The negative now rests on three volumes rather than two, and remains a search result. A counterpart worded without any of those terms would still have escaped, so what is claimed here is that none was found — not that none exists.

Edition note — the IIHF 2026/27 Rule Book, 29 August 2026. Every IIHF citation above was read in the IIHF Official Rule Book 2025/26 (Version 1.1), which the IIHF has since superseded with the IIHF Official Rule Book 2026/27 (Version 1.0, June 2026). The rules named here and the whole of Appendix IV have been compared between the two editions for this document — 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, the whole of Rule 44, the whole of Rule 46, the whole of Rule 48, 60.1, 60.2, 60.3, 60.4, 60.5, the whole of 63.2, 69.4, 69.7, 76.3, 76.4, 76.6, 76.7, 78.5(IX), 81.4, 82.1, 82.2, 83.1 and 87.1 — ⚠️ and nothing else in the new book has been read. Rules 44 and 48 were added to that comparison on 2 September 2026 and are word for word the same in both editions — every sentence of 44.1 to 44.4 and of 48.1 to 48.4, the crouching clause, the "no clean check" and "must avoid" sentences, the supersession sentence, the head-up entitlement, the head-down carve-out and all seven enumerated items — and both are identical in the 2025/26 Version 1.0 extraction as well; the only differences are hyphenation at line wraps and the position of a page folio. Note that the IIHF Rule 48 has no 48.5: its 48.4 is Disciplinary Measures, where the NHL's 48.4 is the no-game-misconduct provision and the NHL's 48.5 is the match penalty. 69.4 is word for word the same in both editions, its conditional permission included, and so are 69.7, all four of its paragraphs, and the 78.5(IX) cross-reference to it. Rule 76 has changed substantially, and section 8 and the face-off row of the section 10 table are written to the new edition: 76.6 now ejects the offending team's draw-taker from the circle for a teammate's encroachment and has the linesperson order the centre replaced on the establish-position-first violation, 76.4 has the player ordered replaced for improper position and has gained the NHL's post-icing carve-out that the older edition had no need of, 76.3(VI) now has the offending centre replaced for a skate win rather than warned, and 76.7 has dropped its warning sentence. The skate-win violation itself, the stick-placement order in 76.4 and the two-violation bench minor in 76.7 are unchanged. Rule 60 has changed too, and the high-sticking material in section 8, the section 10 row and the Common Mistakes list is written to both editions rather than one: the new 60.1 defines a high stick by contact above the shoulders "provided their shoulders are at waist level or higher" where the older one defines it by a stick "carried above the height of the opponent's shoulders", and the new 60.3 carries "(above the height of the opponent's waist)" where the older one requires that the Player "carries or holds any part of their stick above the shoulders and" makes contact. 60.2 and 60.4 are word-for-word identical between the editions; 60.5 gains a Note on the penalty shot that the NHL book also carries. The word "waist" appears once in the 2025/26 book and four times in the 2026/27 one, both counts taken on text normalised for hyphenated line breaks. Rule 46 and Appendix IV are renumbered, and the Rule 46 numbers above are the 2025/26 book's. The 2026/27 book reorders Rule 46's clauses and eleven numbers move: instigator 46.3 becomes 46.10, aggressor 46.4 becomes 46.2, sucker punch 46.5 becomes 46.13, third player in 46.7 becomes 46.14, fighting other than during the periods 46.9 becomes 46.8, fighting off the playing surface 46.11 becomes 46.7, altercation 46.2 becomes 46.3, clearing the area of a fight 46.8 becomes 46.4, helmets 46.12 becomes 46.6, fighting prior to the drop of the puck 46.10 becomes 46.9, and jerseys 46.13 becomes 46.11. The new order is roughly alphabetical by clause heading but breaks at least three times — helmets at 46.6 between continuing and fighting off the playing surface, dangerous punch at 46.13 after major penalty, and disciplinary measures last at 46.15 — so a number cannot be predicted from a heading. ⚠️ 46.1 also changed in substance, and it inverts the default: the 2025/26 clause says a willing combatant "may be ejected from the game", where the 2026/27 clause makes a major plus an automatic game misconduct "the standard penalty for a Player engaged in a fight" and a new 46.12 repeats it. The standalone unwilling-combatant clause at 46.6 is gone, carried in the new book as that discretionary waiver note inside four other clauses — and with it the 2025/26 sentence that a player "who retaliates to being punched will be assessed at least a minor penalty ('Roughing') or a major penalty ('Fighting', without a game misconduct penalty)", the new book carrying no retaliation ladder at all; the sucker-punch injury test narrowed from a punch "that could cause an injury" (46.5) to one that "causes an injury" (46.13), though the penalty is a major plus an automatic game misconduct either way; Rule 20.6's video-review exception follows the move and now names 46.13 rather than 46.5; and the third-player-in waiver is narrower in the new book, keyed to an aggressor penalty plus a purpose test rather than to any game misconduct being imposed in the original altercation. The Appendix tables move with it: the 2026/27 book has no Table 6. Its predecessor's Tables 5, 6 and 7 are merged into a single Table 5 with "MAJOR ONLY" and "MAJOR + GMP" columns, carrying every entry the old three did plus two fighting rows they did not; but the new book's own 20.4 still ends "refer to… Table 6" and its 20.5 still says "Tables 5, 6 and 7", and "Table 6" appears exactly once in the whole book — in that dead cross-reference. The text of 20.4 itself is word-for-word identical between the editions. ⚠️ The merge shifts every table below it down by two, so the numbers cited above are lookups into the older book: misconduct penalties 9 becomes 7, game misconducts 10 becomes 8, penalty shot 11 becomes 9, awarded goals 12 and 12.1 become 10 and 10.1, the goalkeeper's penalties 13 becomes 11, Rule 16 minors 14 becomes 12, coincidental penalties 15 becomes 13, interference on the goalkeeper 16 becomes 14, and the two overtime tables 17 and 18 become 15 and 16. So Table 16 in the current book is Rule 84 Overtime, not the goalkeeper table this document cites at Table 16. The goalkeeper table itself is unchanged in substance: set side by side and normalised for whitespace, the two run to the same 202 lines and differ only in the running header, so Situations 5C, 6C and 6D read identically in both editions. Rules 81.4, 82.1, 82.2 and 87.1 are word-for-word identical between the editions, broken-skate exception and time-out bans included, so the icing rows of the section 10 table are current — including the mismatch between 81.4's four substitution exceptions and 82.1's three, which both editions carry unchanged. ⚠️ 83.1 is the rule compared here that changed most in what it asks of a player, and it changed toward the NHL. The 2026/27 edition adds "For the purposes of this rule, a 'skate' is to be considered the blade of the skate only", which the 2025/26 book does not carry, and rewrites the puck-carrier clause from "provided they have 'possession and control' of the puck prior to their skates crossing the leading edge" to "…of the puck with their stick prior to both skates completely crossing the leading edge" — the NHL 2025-2026 wording in both places. On text flattened for hyphenated line breaks, "blade of the skate" appears 0 times in the 2025/26 book and once in the 2026/27 one, and "prior to their skates crossing the leading edge" once and 0. Only 83.1 was compared in full; inside 83.3 just the "'3D' judgement is not used" clearing sentence was checked, and it is unchanged. So is the whole of 63.2, bench clause included: (III) still names only "their hand or stick" and (II) still reaches a "hand, leg, foot, arm, stick etc." from anywhere on the ice — while the Situation Handbook answers the kicked puck "Yes" at 63.19 in both of its last two editions and at 63.34 in all three, as above. No claim is made here about the rest of this document's IIHF layer — Rules 9, 10, the rest of 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 37, 38, 40 to 43, 45, 47, 49 to 59, 61, 62, the rest of 63, the rest of 69, the rest of 83 and 84 have not been re-read in the new edition, and the 2026/27 Situation Handbook has been read for Situations 60.13, 63.3, 63.19, 63.24, 63.28, 63.29 and 63.34 only: IIHF Situation Handbook 2026/27 (Version 1.0, June 2026), which puts 63.19 in the same facts and answers "Yes." again, and words 63.3, 63.24, 63.28, 63.29 and 63.34 as the 2025/26 edition does. Situation 60.13, the stick lift that misses and catches a bent-over opponent in the face, has no counterpart in the 2025/26 Handbook, whose Rule 60 section ends at Situation 60.12. Faceoffs carries the full face-off comparison.

In-House note — the IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27, 29 August 2026. IHUK has published a new edition of the In-House Rules since 2025-26, and it settles the British face-off answer in its own text. IHUK In-House Rules 2026-27, Revision 1 was published on 25 July 2026 and has been read. ⚠️ Three amendments in it are new — none has any counterpart in the 2025-26 edition, which was re-searched — and all three are quoted in full above: the Section 10 Rule 76 face-off amendment (immediate replacement of the centre for all violations except on post-icing draws, and "Either centre can now put their stick down first for a face-off"), the Section 9 Rule 64 embellishment amendment ("The required call is now 2 plus 10"), and the Section 3 – Equipment Rule 10.3 broken-stick amendment ("Skating with a broken stick anywhere on the ice is not permitted under IHUK In-House Rules", a "2min penalty for illegal equipment"). The word "broken" does not appear at all in the 2025-26 edition. The broken-stick amendment is headed "Broken Stick: Player" and IHUK writes no goalkeeper counterpart to it, so nothing above reads it onto a goalkeeper. The stick-order change is IHUK's own departure, not an IIHF change: IIHF Rule 76.4's defending-player-first sentence is word-for-word identical in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 editions, and both were checked. ⚠️ What this does not settle is which IIHF edition British hockey outside the Elite League sits on — the Elite League being settled by its own Casebook, below, and not by this document. The 2026-27 cover page reads "the Current IIHF Rule Book" where its predecessor named the 2025–26 book, but its Introduction still adopts "the latest IIHF Official Rule Book (Version 1.1, published July 2025)" — Version 1.1 of July 2025 being the 2025/26 book, the 2026/27 one giving its own version as 1.0, June 2026. The document contradicts itself, so nothing here treats it as evidence either way, and the face-off answer above does not depend on it. ⚠️ Scope: the In-House Rules govern the game "in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the Home Countries)"; the Rule 76, Rule 64 and Rule 10.3 amendments carry no league restriction of their own, where the Section 6 fighting provision is headed "Applicable Leagues: NIHL (all leagues), SNL, and BUIHA Varsity"; and the Elite League is not mentioned anywhere in the document, so nothing above speaks to an EIHL game. One further provision was read and is deliberately not carried into the text above: the 2026-27 Section 4 preamble instructs officials to label penalties precisely, including that a cross-check to the head or neck "be called Cross Checking, not Checking to the Head." That is a direction about which label an official writes down; it changes nothing about what is illegal, and it is left out rather than summarised because a one-sentence version of it read aloud would be dangerous.

Rules Primer

Hockey has more than one rule book

Key focus

Overview

If you play in Britain, the IIHF column is yours

1. How a Game Is Structured

The teams on the ice

When a rule says "a player", does that include the goaltender?

Periods and the clock

Stoppages

Changing on the fly

Too many men on the ice

Line changes at a stoppage

Overtime

Timeouts

2. Offside

Offside: The rule

The technique consequence: drag a trail skate

Delayed offside and tagging up

Disallowed goals on a delayed offside

Where the faceoff goes

Video review

Rule-set differences

3. Icing

Icing: The rule

"Gaining the line"

Hybrid, no-touch and touch icing

The full wave-off list

The consequences

What this means for how you play

4. Penalties

The types, and what each does to your team

Stick fouls

Body fouls

Other infractions

Broken sticks

When penalties add up

What actually gets called at rec level

5. Delayed Penalties

Two different things share this name

How the delayed call works

Pulling the goalie

What happens if you score

What to do as a player during a delayed penalty

6. Power Play and Penalty Kill Basics

The strengths you will actually see

When a penalty ends early

Shorthanded teams may ice the puck — with two exceptions

Practical consequences

7. Goaltender-Specific Rules

The crease

Goaltender interference

Screening is legal outside the crease

The trapezoid (goalkeeper's restricted area)

Freezing the puck

The goalie playing the puck

8. Faceoffs

The nine spots

Why the draw is where it is

The two things you must not leave without

9. Officials and Signals

Who is on the ice

The signals you should recognise

Talking to officials

10. Rule Set Differences That Actually Matter

Common Mistakes

Check yourself

Key Takeaways

Cite this page