Technical Corner

September 21, 2026

More than 30 years ago, the Ontario Recreation Facilities Association (ORFA) brought manufacturers and industry stakeholders together to establish minimum best practices for the design and installation of hockey boards, shielding, and protective netting (BSPN) in ice rinks. The goal was to create consistent industry guidance that manufacturers would use when bidding on these system installations.

What Was Happening?

At the time, ice rinks considering board and glass replacement had little practical guidance. When new facilities faced construction cost overruns, owners often looked for ways to reduce budgets. Unlike many building design features governed by legislation, board and shielding systems were largely left to owner discretion. As a result, some systems were reduced from the original recommended design to meet financial constraints, leading to inconsistent design and construction methods and an uneven “field of play.” This became more evident when leagues began penalizing deliberate attempts to stop play by shooting the puck over the shielding. In some cases, the action was intentional; in others, a goaltender accustomed to 4-foot side glass at a home rink might unintentionally put the puck out of play in a facility with only 2-foot side glass, resulting in a penalty. At the same time, construction materials and product quality were rapidly expanding in the marketplace. Members wanted unbiased guidance on which options offered the best return on investment. ORFA’s board and shielding subcommittee spent more than two years reviewing these issues and developing industry-driven design best practices to create a more consistent bidding process, allowing owners to compare board height, shielding height, material type, tempered glass versus acrylic and door hardware quality on an equal basis.

The Protective Netting Decision

ORFA recognized that injuries caused by objects leaving the playing surface were becoming a growing liability concern. Public expectations were shifting from accepting the possibility of being struck by a puck or similar object to seeking compensation when injuries occurred. ORFA’s board and shielding subcommittee consulted with a range of professionals while attempting to develop a general design template. Ultimately, the committee concluded that owners should take reasonable steps to protect patrons and workers by installing appropriate protective measures from the top of the shielding to a height that creates an effective safety barrier. Because each facility is unique, the appropriate design must be calculated for each building. ORFA could not have predicted how significant this work would become following the March 2002 death of a young spectator at a Columbus Blue Jackets game after she was struck by a puck, shortly after ORFA completed its work.

CSA Became Involved

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has long supported the development of safety and performance standards for Canada’s construction industry, helping ensure that construction practices meet current requirements and anticipate future needs. Building on this role, CSA developed a spectator safety guideline for indoor arenas and made it available through its different platforms. After several years, CSA withdrew the guideline and directed interested parties to ORFA’s boards and glass guideline as it was more detailed and industry reflective. CSA has also recently invited ORFA to participate in its recreation standards subcommittee, an opportunity ORFA continues to explore. More: Arena Boards, Shielding and Protective Netting (BSPN) Systems

Role of the ORFA Boards, Shielding, and Protective Netting (BSPN) Resource

The ORFA has been, and will continue to be, a member-driven professional association for issues affecting the recreation facilities industry. Allowing manufacturers to define operational design or installation best practices has the potential for creating significant economic risks. When manufacturers or service providers narrow marketplace options under the promise of owner benefit, it can be difficult to reverse once adopted. Many members already face similar challenges when suppliers restrict access to computerized controls or physical components, limiting repair options and creating single-source environments. Cooperative purchasing may be sound from a procurement perspective and can benefit owners, but it may also limit access for some suppliers and reduce consideration of alternatives compared with traditional procurement. Regardless of the purchasing method used, owners must carefully assess the desired product or service, supplier reputation, and overall due diligence requirements.

Stopping Unsubsidized Research and Development Practices

ORFA members are encouraged to confirm that suppliers have completed adequate research and development before purchasing products or services. When members buy equipment or products that have not been sufficiently field tested, they can unknowingly become part of the supplier’s research and development process. If a design or piece of equipment fails in the field, owners are often told not to worry because it is under warranty and the supplier will make repairs at no cost. However, lost revenue, staff frustration, and customer dissatisfaction remain the facility’s responsibility. Owners should consider building reasonable compensation for these types of losses into purchase agreements. It is impossible to calculate how much community taxpayers have paid to subsidize manufacturers’ research and development costs because of inadequate pre-purchase field testing by suppliers or manufacturers.

The Continued Role of ORFA

Manufacturers and service providers play an important role in shaping the future of the industry, but that relationship must be monitored to ensure owners remain the primary beneficiaries of these investments. Traditional BSPN systems continue to evolve with new safety, technology, and sustainability features that are both promoted by suppliers and desired by users. The ORFA will continue to provide oversight and invites members to participate in these discussions. When profit drives a best practice, the outcome may not always serve the purchaser’s interests. The ORFA is the industry’s “credit union”: every dollar contributed by members is held in trust for their direct benefit. Members have a voice in how ORFA represents them. As a not-for-profit organization, ORFA’s mission and vision are focused on improving the industry and sharing information, not increasing a financial bottom line. Understanding what is being funded is an important part of every purchase decision. More: Ontario Recreation Facilities Association Inc. - ORFA Profile