skip navigation

The Right Way to Use Video as a Coaching Tool

By Jamie MacDonald, 06/19/15, 3:15PM MDT


Standing on the bench during what would become a regular season-ending loss to rival Lakeville North High School in Minnesota, Lakeville South head coach Natalie Darwitz knew it wasn't her team's best effort. She also knew the loss could become a teaching moment through the power of video. Eventually. Like any set of tools, video has its time, place and appropriate application.

Lakeville South responded with two convincing wins that led to a rematch against Lakeville North in the section final. To prepare, Darwitz reviewed video clips of the loss along with clips of what they had done so well afterward. 

“I asked, ‘See a difference?’” Darwitz recalled recently. "It fired them up to see how good we could play."

Lakeville South went on to advance with a win.

For Darwitz, coaching through video has been a way of life for more than a decade, dating back to her days with the U.S. Women's National Team. Now well into her second act as a coach, one who this spring took over Hamline University’s program in St. Paul, Minn., Darwitz remains a proponent of video – with its appropriate time, place and application.

“I think it has to be all about a learning environment,” Darwitz said. “If you're showing all negative clips, like in everyday life, what are you going to think? For me, it's a learning tool. If you can get kids excited about being better, they're most likely going to do it. If it's coming from a negative place, no one's going to be excited about going in there.”

U.S. National Team Development Program head coach Don Granato echoes that sentiment, and he’s even devised a rough formula for just how positive he keeps his video sessions.

“I would discourage showing any video to a kid of what they do wrong,” said Granato, who began coaching at the NTDP in 2011 after successful stints in both the amateur and professional ranks. “I have kind of a rule that I live by: If I'm going to show one clip of a player doing something wrong, I have to show supplementary clips of them doing things right – like a 3-to-1 ratio. I just don't think it's healthy to show players what they did wrong.”

Video has changed a great deal since Granato asked as an early teen for a VCR just so he could record games and play them back as a coach-in-training. 

“It's been so natural for me,” he said. “I've always found the game of hockey fascinating. There's so much read-and-react that I enjoy watching film just to try to figure out the patterns and consistencies.”

Still, for as much video as he watches, Granato wouldn’t suggest drowning players in it. Moderation is key. 

“I use video to make myself a better coach,” said Granato. “For every 10 hours of video I watch, I probably show the players 15 minutes. I want them to study the film as little as they have to – I want them to play.”

In terms of content, Granato would suggest creating a positive environment. 

“The more fun and less threatening, the better,” he said. “If you're going to show video, my biggest piece of advice would be to not show players making mistakes. Show video of positives. Show video that energizes them, that inspires them to do something again.”

And if that means showing clips of Patrick Kane stick-handling gracefully through traffic instead of, say, a young player stick-handling less gracefully through traffic, so be it.

“I think video at the younger ages should be more geared toward players either watching the excitement of the game or the fun aspects of the game – basically, the highlights," Granato said. "As players progress age-wise, they can learn the game more. But, let's face it, our best athletes are the ones who idolized someone in the sport. Access to watching athletes historically has been great for aspiring players. I think the video really should be inspirational and geared toward their aspirations.”

Technology has also made it easier than ever to watch those highlights on phones or tablets that are merely a search away from "Patrick Kane shootout" bliss. In other words, there will come a time for systems.

Darwitz, who joked about a time “back in the day” of stopping, rewinding and fast-forwarding tape as much as actually watching that tape, says coaches can appreciate and embrace how much more tactical coaches can be these days.

“Now, you can take video and, 10 seconds later, you can go slow-motion to show kids what they're doing right,” she said. “Now, you can show three clips of the power play, then the penalty kill. And the 4-on-4 plays. You can make them sequential. If you're shuffling through and you don't know what clip is next, you're going to lose that audience and interest.”

Like Granato, Darwitz also preached moderation in video sessions. The former University of Minnesota star (she recorded 248 points in 99 career games) recommends keeping sessions under 30 minutes, and her commitment to video, by design, lacks structure.

“In the early part of the season, we're working on skill development and getting better as a team,” said Darwitz. “In the second half of the season, I'm a little bit bigger on video because you're getting in to playing teams the second time around and playoffs are just around the corner. But, last year, no more than seven [sessions] and I tried to keep it under 25 minutes. I find anything longer than a half-hour you start to lose attention spans.”

Play to the crowd, Darwitz insists.

“I don’t think, at 12- or 14-years-old, that video has to be introduced on a routine basis – maybe three or four times a season,” she said. “If you're doing video once a week and it's not to the point where it's knowledge-sharing and the kids aren't learning, why do it? Like anything, you have to read the audience. If they're not engaged, stop.”

And don't play down to the crowd, either.  

“I like dialogue," Darwitz said. "If a kid sees something, they're speaking up. But I do think it's good to point out, ‘Hey, here's an example of us forechecking well. Now, here's an example of us later in the game where we stopped moving our feet. You guys see the difference?’ If you don't have anything positive, you might throw in some NHL clips or some college clips. They have to be able to differentiate what you're looking for and what they did. To say, 'We have to do this better,' and you don't show them how, it's just sort of wasting time."

Recent News

Most Popular Articles

2022-23 ATO | WEEK 13

By USA Hockey Officiating 11/25/2022, 6:45am MST

QUESTIONA player received her second misconduct during a game and was assessed a game misconduct. The player had to skate in front of the opponent's bench to get to the rink exit, and as she did multiple players on the opponent's bench began banging the boards and cheering (essentially taunting her). A bench minor was assessed for unsportsmanlike like conduct to the cheering team. Was this an appropriate unsportsmanlike call?

ANSWER: This behavior by the non-penalized team should be penalized under Rule 601 for “taunting”. If the behavior is only committed by one player, then that player should be penalized. However, if the entire team engages in taunting behavior, and the team coaches make no effort to stop it, then a bench minor penalty would be correct.


QUESTION: During a game there is a scuffle following a check-from-behind into the boards. I reach the scuffle and notice Player A has his hand on the throat of Player B and is pushing him backwards towards the boards. I couldn't tell if he was squeezing the throat or not. What is the correct call? Would this just be a minor for roughing (or something else), or considered a match penalty for attempt to injure?

ANSWER: Considering the USA Hockey Playing Rules mandate a Major plus Game Misconduct for Grabbing the Face-mask, a Match penalty should be assessed to any player who grabs an opponent’s throat. What other rationale could apply to this situation other than the offending player is “attempting to injure” the opponent?


QUESTIONA puck was motionless in the high-slot and an attacking player was skating in from just past the center-line. I (as a goalie) came out to the puck and knocked it away. Just after knocking the puck away, that player and I collided and he fell down. We were moving about the same speed (not super fast). It was pure chest to chest contact. The referee told me that he would assess a penalty if I did that again. What is the USA Hockey's assessment of that interaction?

ANSWERIt's very difficult to answer this question without actually seeing the play. However, due to the fact that strict rules exist that limit player contact with the goalkeeper, it stands to reason that goalkeepers cannot make any reckless contact with players. In the situation you describe, the opposing forward did not have possession of the puck therefore they may not be checked.

However, if the contact was unavoidable, non-injury threatening and incidental from a clean battle for a 50/50 puck then the contact could be deemed “Body Contact” and not against the rules.


QUESTIONTeam A receives a minor plus misconduct, and Team B receives a minor during the same stoppage of play. Since the minors are coincidental, does the misconduct start as soon as the coincidental minors end? Or does it start after two minutes and a whistle?

ANSWER: In any case where a player is assessed a minor plus misconduct, they must serve the entire penalty time in the penalty bench and the misconduct would start immediately once the minor expires.


QUESTIONAttacking player in attacking zone bats the puck towards the net. The goalie decides to cover the puck and play is blown dead. Does this constitute as a “Hand Pass” situation? Do goaltenders count as player that can nullify “hand passes”? Where does the following face-off take place in the above situation?

ANSWERThis situation is not a Hand-Pass since a teammate never touched the puck. The USA Hockey Playing Rules allow a player to bat the puck with the hand, but it may not be played by a teammate immediately following. Since a teammate never touched the puck, there is no Hand-Pass violation.

The face-off would stay inside the attacking end-zone.


The USA Hockey Playing Rules are now available as a mobile device app! Check your Apple, Android, or Windows app store to download this playing rule app free of charge.

Check out the USA Hockey mobile-friendly online rulebook application! Enter into your mobile device’s web browser to gain instant access to the USA Hockey Playing Rules (must have mobile or internet service).

The USA Hockey Playing Rules Casebook and other educational material can be found under the OFFICIALS tab at

2022-23 ATO | WEEK 11

By USA Hockey Officiating Program 11/11/2022, 6:15am MST

THIS WEEK: High-Sticking...serving goalkeeper more.

QUESTIONCan a referee call a High-Sticking penalty against a player if the player's stick hits the referee above the shoulder after the referee drops the puck during a face-off?

ANSWER: Officials cannot penalize accidental stick contact with a player, even if it results in an injury. However, any intentional attempt to injure an official or intentional injury of an official should result in a Match Penalty.


QUESTIONAre neck-guards and mouthpieces mandatory at 10U level?

ANSWER: Under the USA Hockey Youth Playing Rules, mouthpieces and neck-guards are not required equipment at the 10U level. However, leagues and hockey associations are entitled to strengthen equipment rules with approval by the local governing USA Hockey Affiliate. Therefore, we encourage you to check to see if any additional rules apply in your games.


QUESTION: Team A is shorthanded, and Team B is called for a penalty but play continues because Team B has not touched the puck. During this time, Team A scores. Is the penalty called on Team B wiped out as it would be if the teams were at even strength?

ANSWER: In this situation, the Team B penalty (assuming it is a minor) is recorded but not served. Play resumes 5 v. 4.


QUESTIONIn a U10 game, a penalty is assessed to the attacking team. Due ti an officials' error, the face-off is not moved outside the attacking zone. The attacking team scores, and the coach notifies officials of their error. The officials disallow the goal and have ensuing face-off in neutral zone. Is it correct for the goal to be disallowed on the officials error?

ANSWER: Due to the fact that this goal resulted after a face-off location error by the officials, the goal must be allowed.


QUESTIONIf a goalkeeper and an opposing player receive coincident minor penalties does someone have to serve the penalty time for the goalkeeper even though it’s a coincident minor?

ANSWER: The “spirit and intent” of the Goalkeeper Penalty rules (Rule 407) in the USA Hockey Playing Rules is the offending team must lose a player when a goalkeeper commits an infraction. Therefore, despite the fact that the two minors are coincidental and result in immediate substitution (play resumes 5 v. 5), the offending team must still place a substitute player (who must be one of the players on the ice at the time of the infraction) in the penalty bench to return at the first stoppage after two minutes.


The USA Hockey Playing Rules are now available as a mobile device app! Check your Apple, Android, or Windows app store to download this playing rule app free of charge.

Check out the USA Hockey mobile-friendly online rulebook application! Enter into your mobile device’s web browser to gain instant access to the USA Hockey Playing Rules (must have mobile or internet service).

The USA Hockey Playing Rules Casebook and other educational material can be found under the OFFICIALS tab at

2022-23 ATO | WEEK 10

By USA Hockey Officiating Program 11/04/2022, 6:00am MDT

QUESTION: Four weeks ago, an official called a penalty against an attacking player for trying to kick the puck out of the crease back to his stick. Now fast forward to this past week, the same situation happens again and both officials state there is no such rule. Which set of officials was correct?

ANSWERProvided the kicking motion does not make contact with the goalkeeper or any opponent, there is no rule in the USA Hockey Playing Rules that prevents a player from kicking the puck.

Rule 627.c in the USA Hockey Playing Rules states,

“Kicking the puck shall be permitted provided the puck is not kicked by an attacking player and entered the goal either directly or after deflecting off any player including the goalkeeper.

However, the puck may not be played by the so called "kick shot," which combines the use of the leg and foot driving the shaft and blade of the stick and producing a very dangerous shot.”


QUESTIONCan a substitute goalie serve a misconduct penalty for another player? For example, a player receives a Spearing penalty (5+GM), can the back-up goalie serve the 5-minute major?

ANSWER: Goalkeepers may not serve penalties under the USA Hockey Playing Rules.


QUESTIONWhat is the rule on mercy rules for 12U level games? If both teams would still like to continue playing in the third period even if one team has a very large lead, is it true that refs are not allowed to continue reffing the game.

ANSWERUSA Hockey does not have any official rules regarding “Mercy Rules”. These are left to the local association or league to determine since they are the ones purchasing the ice slots and managing the operations of the local games.

With that being said, officials are generally assigned to work a complete game regardless of how the game ends (mercy rule, normal game time, forfeit, etc.). Therefore, if teams want to continue playing then all USA Hockey Membership Benefits would be in effect for the complete game, overtime and shootout (and even if they just want to add some extra time to fill the ice slot).


QUESTIONDuring the same shift a single player commits a minor penalty, the other team maintains puck possession and the same player commits another minor penalty. Will play resume "5 v. 4" for four-minutes or "5 v. 3" for two minutes?

ANSWER: Since one player committed two penalties, play would resume "5 vs. 4" for four minutes. If a second player committed a penalty, then play would resume at "5 vs. 3" for two minutes.


QUESTIONPlayer A is pinned up against the side of the net by Player B. The puck is in possession by another player away from the net area. Player B is holding Player A, preventing Player A from escaping to an open ice area. Player A yells out "He's holding me" twice and the ref blows the whistle and proceeds to issue a 10-minute (Misconduct) against Player A. Is a Misconduct call the right call for Player A.

ANSWER: This question is very difficult to answer without seeing the play first hand. However, a player that holds or impedes the progress of an opponent should be penalized for Interference or Holding. Furthermore, any player who displays abusive or derogatory behavior toward an official should be penalized under Rule 601 in the USA Hockey Playing Rules


The USA Hockey Playing Rules are now available as a mobile device app! Check your Apple, Android, or Windows app store to download this playing rule app free of charge.

Check out the USA Hockey mobile-friendly online rulebook application! Enter into your mobile device’s web browser to gain instant access to the USA Hockey Playing Rules (must have mobile or internet service).

The USA Hockey Playing Rules Casebook and other educational material can be found under the OFFICIALS tab at