Checking in bantams

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Post Reply

Should USAH remove checking from bantams?

Yes
2
8%
No
16
67%
Leave at the bantam A level
4
17%
Some other answer
2
8%
 
Total votes: 24

elliott70
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:15 pm

USAH is studying the removal of checking in bantams.

What do you think?

Goose21
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:31 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Goose21 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:23 pm

I was skeptical when they removed checking from Peewees, but I have to admit I think it has improved some things at the bantam level. That said, I don't think it should be removed from the higher level of Bantams, but would support having a non-checking level.
Forecheck, Backcheck, Paycheck

blueline_6
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by blueline_6 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:29 am

MN Hockey offers no-checking recreational leagues.

Before doing anything else with checking rules, I would like to see an independent study of the frequency of Checking from Behind, Head Contact and Misconduct penalities in Bantams prior to removing checking from peewees and after removing checking from peewees.

IMO, we now have Bantam kids that don't know properly give or receive a body check. Pushing that off until these kids are playing high school or junior hockey is not going to solve the problem.

Dog
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:47 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Dog » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:03 pm

The difference is that at peewees you have kids at vastly different size and skill. At bantams this gets cleaned up a bit because skill and size (with skill) tend to go together (based on the strength of the program and the schedule they play). At peewees it is much more possible to have a a 5'10" kid or greater playing against a 5' kid or smaller and you can have a kid get absolutely crushed on the boards.
The most important difference is that you're talking about kids at as young as 11 at peewees who don't have the mental fortitude to stop themselves when they come up on a younger, smaller kid on the boards. Can that still happen at bantams when you get a big size difference? Certainly. But it's safer to wait until after peewees.
The other possible safer route would be to put checking back at squirts to get the kids used to the body aspect of the game.
But then you'd be introducing back head injuries that can become a huge problem later.
Why have checking at bantams then? Because eventually they have to learn. If they go into High School not knowing the "art" of checking, they'll be at the same disadvantage that they'd have at peewees with unaware 10th graders going to the boards against basically "men" 12th graders on the boards.
The current system, most likely, protects them as best we can, IMO.

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Redarmy19 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:13 am

My son plays Bantam A and there is an average of 1 checking from behind/boarding (2 and 10) per game. The average is probably actually slightly over 1 per game. That said, I would not want checking taken out of Bantams. I'd rather see stiffer penalties for checking from behind/boarding/head shots.

elliott70
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:52 am

Redarmy19 wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:13 am
My son plays Bantam A and there is an average of 1 checking from behind/boarding (2 and 10) per game. The average is probably actually slightly over 1 per game. That said, I would not want checking taken out of Bantams. I'd rather see stiffer penalties for checking from behind/boarding/head shots.

Interesting.
In D16 I track penalties and, while I have not done the math, boarding and behind penalties occur about once in 5 or more games.
Last year (the first half) they were more frequent but I have received very few incident reports this year.

Goose21
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:31 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Goose21 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:29 pm

In my observation, the removal of checking at Bantams and stronger enforcement of more dangerous hits has created a Bantam game of more skill, puck movement, and positioning. I see more kids playing the puck, or puck and body, than just hitting. The emphasis is more on separating the puck from the player than just laying somebody out.
Forecheck, Backcheck, Paycheck

zooomx
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by zooomx » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:27 pm

My son graduated last year. Looking back, I saw a ton of dumb "checking decisions" at the bantam level. They are still too immature to process the risk they are taking. Let them separate the opponent from the puck without the blow up hit. High school players will be able to adjust just fine.

Tapinbirdie
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Tapinbirdie » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:49 am

I have been a head coach at the A Bantam level and these are just my experiences and two cents on the matter...

I have a son that just left Bantams. He was of decent size for Bantams and was fairly rugged, but skated with his head down. He learned the hard way, especially against northern teams. I have another son that is a first year AA Bantam D-man. He is small, but battles. The bigger and stronger Bantams look for the smaller kids to hit. He is learning to escape contact and defend himself as the season progresses. He is taking far less hits now than in November. There will always be a size discrepancy (PW, Bantam, or HS). Go to a HS game for proof. The problem is learning/experiencing checking at an older age, when the kids are physically stronger and larger, when the hits are more impactful, is placing kids in harms way.

My experience is that almost every game in D2 has a 2 and 10 for checking. The kids complain about the call every time (and often the coaches). They don't understand why the call is made or what they did wrong. Last night, while minding the penalty box, it happened twice. Both kids whining about the call because it caused them to miss significant playing time. These kids should have known that they had made a poor decision regardless of the call. This is a huge issue. In my opinion, checking should not be taken away from Bantams. It should be taught in detail.

There should be an early-season or pre-season mandatory 2 hour training with coaches, players, and referees. We would all have reasonable expectations of referees calls and realize why they may/may not be made during the season. Show the players/coaches what we want to see-separation of body or hands from puck. Controlling your man in the corners with balance and hand position. Make it clear to everyone what a "dangerous" hit is. We want contact to the torso. Never hits to the head; which will always be 10 min call. That checks slightly away from the dasher will always get a 10 min boarding call. Hits from behind are always the hitters fault (even on a late turn by the puck carrier) and will garner a 10 min. These calls should be automatic regardless of intent. If everyone was aware of this...it may make the officials job easier. Coaches would be more supportive of the calls. Players would understand why the call was made (even with mitigating circumstances) and hopefully change behavior.
Healthy Scratch for Tonight's Game

Dog
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:47 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Dog » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:39 pm

Tapinbirdie wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:49 am
I have been a head coach at the A Bantam level and these are just my experiences and two cents on the matter...

I have a son that just left Bantams. He was of decent size for Bantams and was fairly rugged, but skated with his head down. He learned the hard way, especially against northern teams. I have another son that is a first year AA Bantam D-man. He is small, but battles. The bigger and stronger Bantams look for the smaller kids to hit. He is learning to escape contact and defend himself as the season progresses. He is taking far less hits now than in November. There will always be a size discrepancy (PW, Bantam, or HS). Go to a HS game for proof. The problem is learning/experiencing checking at an older age, when the kids are physically stronger and larger, when the hits are more impactful, is placing kids in harms way.

My experience is that almost every game in D2 has a 2 and 10 for checking. The kids complain about the call every time (and often the coaches). They don't understand why the call is made or what they did wrong. Last night, while minding the penalty box, it happened twice. Both kids whining about the call because it caused them to miss significant playing time. These kids should have known that they had made a poor decision regardless of the call. This is a huge issue. In my opinion, checking should not be taken away from Bantams. It should be taught in detail.

There should be an early-season or pre-season mandatory 2 hour training with coaches, players, and referees. We would all have reasonable expectations of referees calls and realize why they may/may not be made during the season. Show the players/coaches what we want to see-separation of body or hands from puck. Controlling your man in the corners with balance and hand position. Make it clear to everyone what a "dangerous" hit is. We want contact to the torso. Never hits to the head; which will always be 10 min call. That checks slightly away from the dasher will always get a 10 min boarding call. Hits from behind are always the hitters fault (even on a late turn by the puck carrier) and will garner a 10 min. These calls should be automatic regardless of intent. If everyone was aware of this...it may make the officials job easier. Coaches would be more supportive of the calls. Players would understand why the call was made (even with mitigating circumstances) and hopefully change behavior.
Very well stated. One thing I've heard (not sure if it's true) is that the coffers have risen significantly due to the coaches fees charged by USA hockey. It certainly would make sense that it's true when you count all the coaches out there and I really don't see them offering more than the clinics and on-line classes. What else do they offer for the $?
If that is the case that they have cash in the bank, then why can't USA or MN hockey put their money where their mouth is and offer checking clinics at a reduced fee that is mandatory to be in bantams and run by officials (USA/MN/ referees) before the bantam season starts to try to reduce unnecessary or reckless hits?

elliott70
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:42 am

"Very well stated. One thing I've heard (not sure if it's true) is that the coffers have risen significantly due to the coaches fees charged by USA hockey. It certainly would make sense that it's true when you count all the coaches out there and I really don't see them offering more than the clinics and on-line classes. What else do they offer for the $?
If that is the case that they have cash in the bank, then why can't USA or MN hockey put their money where their mouth is and offer checking clinics at a reduced fee that is mandatory to be in bantams and run by officials (USA/MN/ referees) before the bantam season starts to try to reduce unnecessary or reckless hits?" per DOG

Both organizations have cash in the bank.
At the MH level some of us have been advocating return of funds/reductions in player fees.
MH has set up a couple of programs to send money back to the district level and provide an avenue for needy requests to be handled.
The suggestion from tapinbirdie has been sent to MH board members and some are eager to institute the program.

We sill see what transpires next week.

goldy313
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:43 am

I posted this same sentiment earlier......

The Mayo hockey group has an agenda.....right or wrong. But they offer no solutions. What happens when 9th graders who have never seen a check play against 12 graders who have been checking for 3-4 years? Is that safer?

Mayo makes a significant amount of revenue in sports medicine and in clearing athletes from concussions. A legitimate question is are they advocating safety or revenue?

If we legislate no one under 25 drives a car we significantly lower the number of traffic related deaths for those unde age 25. But at what cost. Statistics are only a reflection of data.

Tapinbirdie
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Tapinbirdie » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:49 pm

Both organizations have cash in the bank.
At the MH level some of us have been advocating return of funds/reductions in player fees.
MH has set up a couple of programs to send money back to the district level and provide an avenue for needy requests to be handled.
The suggestion from tapinbirdie has been sent to MH board members and some are eager to institute the program.

We sill see what transpires next week.
[/quote]

I just saw a tweet regarding the checking clinics on Twitter. I went to the Minnesota Hockey website for more details. The link is listed below:

https://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sh ... =hootsuite

I hope the checking clinics are well attended and players find them useful. Are they being promoted by community hockey associations? I haven’t seen anything here at WBL. Thanks for thinking outside the box and trying something new. Keep me posted.

Your efforts are appreciated,
Chris
Healthy Scratch for Tonight's Game

MWS coach
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:31 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by MWS coach » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:12 am

I applaud the training and education efforts, if successful they will go along way to minimize the dangerous hits. At the end of the day, I think this is what needs to be solved. A clean body check body to body is not what is most dangerous, as mentioned it is the head contact, boarding, and checking from behind. IMO there can never be to much education or training done on this topic of how to correctly check. Checking is a skill in hockey, yet by moving it older and older without additional training does not address the issue. IMO it actually makes it worse as others have mentioned as it takes away the learning process until players are much bigger and stronger.

Taking away checking in bantams does not teach players to check correctly and equally important in my mind, the mentality of the purpose of when to deliver a check. It is to separate the puck carrier from the puck, not to intimidate.

The other component is calling penalties when checks are delivered for intimidation purposes. I will give the example of DE vs STA quarterfinal game at HS. Many hits were high and were delivered well after the puck was gone from the players stick. Yeah, I know that is called finishing your check, but I challenge that mentality in which why the check was delivered? Was it done to remove the player from the puck? No, it was done to intimidate. Until that mentality changes and matches the purpose for the rule, teaching how to check will only solve part of the issue.

Intimidation factor is difficult when you are talking about testosterone filled boys, still it is a factor and while calling penalties in such instance can help, that won't change the testosterone factor completely, but I don't think that means you just eliminate checking.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by JSR » Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:32 pm

Dog wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:03 pm
The difference is that at peewees you have kids at vastly different size and skill. At bantams this gets cleaned up a bit because skill and size (with skill) tend to go together (based on the strength of the program and the schedule they play). At peewees it is much more possible to have a a 5'10" kid or greater playing against a 5' kid or smaller and you can have a kid get absolutely crushed on the boards.
The most important difference is that you're talking about kids at as young as 11 at peewees who don't have the mental fortitude to stop themselves when they come up on a younger, smaller kid on the boards. Can that still happen at bantams when you get a big size difference? Certainly. But it's safer to wait until after peewees.
The other possible safer route would be to put checking back at squirts to get the kids used to the body aspect of the game.
But then you'd be introducing back head injuries that can become a huge problem later.
Why have checking at bantams then? Because eventually they have to learn. If they go into High School not knowing the "art" of checking, they'll be at the same disadvantage that they'd have at peewees with unaware 10th graders going to the boards against basically "men" 12th graders on the boards.
The current system, most likely, protects them as best we can, IMO.
I disagree about your size assessment. It's much more likely at bantams to have a giant size disparity than it is at Pee Wees. The 5 footer aganst the 6 footer is a common problem at Bantams that you rarely see at pee wees.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by JSR » Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:39 pm

elliott70 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:15 pm
USAH is studying the removal of checking in bantams.

What do you think?
Personally I think they should implement more body contact and "checking' into the squirt level. If they'd implement it younger rather than older and place a greater emphasis in both coaching and refereeing to use body contact correct at earlier ages I think we'd have far better outcomes in both areas of retention and in getting rid of the "big hits" and the "blow em attitude" that mars the game. I've seen a much greater instance of playing with the head down at bantams since they implemented the current rule than I ever saw when they allowed checking in pee wees. Plus the size discrepancy at bantams for kids getting their first taste of 'hitting" is at it's peak in the bantam age groups. Now that I type this out you might actually want to look at it through a "crazy" lens and actually think about implementing body contact/checking at pee wees and below and then taking it out at bantams, and then reinstating it for midgets/high school. Now that would be an interesting experiment where you take the checking out just for the two years of bantams while the kids are at their most vulnerable both in size and in mentality but teach it right and really enforce it right at younger ages, and then reinstituting it at midget/high school where they are on a more even playing field physically and mentally but will have not been allowed to do it for two years but had many years of correct instruction before that. It might be the best way to teach it, enforce it, and allow for a more skilled and slightly less physical game in the midget and older age groups. It's a little different thought process but might be a bigger winner than continually taking it out of every level, because lets face it if they take it out of bantams then high school and midgets are next, then juniors are next, then college, then ultimately the pros..... just saying if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk...

PuckNA
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by PuckNA » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:57 pm

Should moved down to Squirt level, but needs to start as body contact and taught properly, we make this an "event" to get to bantams to check or get checked. Emphasis also needs to be on taking a hit and all the do's and don'ts. It needs to be a part of the game from a young age and taught properly when speed is less, size is less and testosterone is less. Instead of kids waiting to "blow someone up" puck protection and separation become common and kids learn to play heads up hockey. Watched to many kids get their heads removed by not ever having to worry about a body coming their way until Bantams.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by JSR » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:43 am

PuckNA wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:57 pm
Should moved down to Squirt level, but needs to start as body contact and taught properly, we make this an "event" to get to bantams to check or get checked. Emphasis also needs to be on taking a hit and all the do's and don'ts. It needs to be a part of the game from a young age and taught properly when speed is less, size is less and testosterone is less. Instead of kids waiting to "blow someone up" puck protection and separation become common and kids learn to play heads up hockey. Watched to many kids get their heads removed by not ever having to worry about a body coming their way until Bantams.
Spot on

PuckNA
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by PuckNA » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:24 am

MWS coach wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:12 am
I applaud the training and education efforts, if successful they will go along way to minimize the dangerous hits. At the end of the day, I think this is what needs to be solved. A clean body check body to body is not what is most dangerous, as mentioned it is the head contact, boarding, and checking from behind. IMO there can never be to much education or training done on this topic of how to correctly check. Checking is a skill in hockey, yet by moving it older and older without additional training does not address the issue. IMO it actually makes it worse as others have mentioned as it takes away the learning process until players are much bigger and stronger.

Taking away checking in bantams does not teach players to check correctly and equally important in my mind, the mentality of the purpose of when to deliver a check. It is to separate the puck carrier from the puck, not to intimidate.

The other component is calling penalties when checks are delivered for intimidation purposes. I will give the example of DE vs STA quarterfinal game at HS. Many hits were high and were delivered well after the puck was gone from the players stick. Yeah, I know that is called finishing your check, but I challenge that mentality in which why the check was delivered? Was it done to remove the player from the puck? No, it was done to intimidate. Until that mentality changes and matches the purpose for the rule, teaching how to check will only solve part of the issue.

Intimidation factor is difficult when you are talking about testosterone filled boys, still it is a factor and while calling penalties in such instance can help, that won't change the testosterone factor completely, but I don't think that means you just eliminate checking.
Agree with a lot of what you say, but I do believe the "Intimidation Factor" is a part of the game as well, watched many games where after a couple hard hits, physically stronger player or lost board battles where players quit trying to enter on half the offensive zone. To me this is a part of the game, defensively you have just "shrunk the rink" in your end. Now that being said, going after kids in vulnerable spots because you can to me is penalty material, but if it's man to man, face to face it's different. The game is not all about skill guys skating around and making plays and not having to worry about getting their head up so they don't get hit. Onus is on both player with the puck to not put themselves in a bad spot or vulnerable situation, as well as the defensive player to not take advantage of players who do and injuring someone. You can remove someone from the puck and use force (hard to make a play from your backside). So players who are bigger and stronger shouldn't use that to their advantage, but a player smaller and maybe faster and more skilled should get to use his tools? It's a tough call, can't always judge intent, game wasn't created for only "ballerinas with sticks", but also don't want a bunch of "thugs" running around trying to hurt guys. Think getting this back and being taught younger and correctly helps with both scenarios.

goldy313
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by goldy313 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:47 am

Enforce the rules as written. Fair Play is a detrimental to this. Referees are human and have a terrible angle for most calls. Nearly everyone has a video of every hit. Let the DD administrator suspensions.

Both the NHL and NCAA allows this. Youth should be no different if safety is what we want

GoldenBear
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:38 am

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by GoldenBear » Wed May 01, 2019 3:05 pm

I think whatever age checking is done for youth hockey should be the first time kids can use non-wooden sticks. Take the cost out of hockey! The use of wooden sticks will save at least $2K per player who enters Bantams. It won't set back any development for the kids. GB

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed May 15, 2019 9:18 am

I had my son use a wooden stick through squirts. I can tell you the cost savings is negligible. You can buy a cheap composite youth stick for under $50, easily, especially with sales, that will perform better than a wood stick. Lower grade composites are more durable than the more expensive composites that sacrifice durability for performance. You also have the added benefit of being able to add plug extensions to the composite stick as your young player grows. Though wood sticks are cheaper, you'll still pay about $20 for a woodie, but the blade will flay and splinter and wear out with use, and, once the stick is cut, there is no way to adjust the length. Bottom line, you will go through at least two wood sticks every season and they are not as durable, adjustable (length), and do not have the performance characteristics of a composite. I will say that a wood stick offers a young player more "feel" than a cheap composite, so they can better develop their hands, but that performance factor is just my opinion and is debatable.

Bottom line, there are cheap composite sticks on the market. There is no need to spend $300 on a stick for a squirt. Buy one under $50 and they'll be fine. It's up to you, as the parent, to keep the costs of hockey equipment in check. There are affordable equipment options available on the market.

Ok, that was way off topic.

zooomx
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by zooomx » Wed May 15, 2019 9:34 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:18 am
I had my son use a wooden stick through squirts. I can tell you the cost savings is negligible. You can buy a cheap composite youth stick for under $50, easily, especially with sales, that will perform better than a wood stick. Lower grade composites are more durable than the more expensive composites that sacrifice durability for performance. You also have the added benefit of being able to add plug extensions to the composite stick as your young player grows. Though wood sticks are cheaper, you'll still pay about $20 for a woodie, but the blade will flay and splinter and wear out with use, and, once the stick is cut, there is no way to adjust the length. Bottom line, you will go through at least two wood sticks every season and they are not as durable, adjustable (length), and do not have the performance characteristics of a composite. I will say that a wood stick offers a young player more "feel" than a cheap composite, so they can better develop their hands, but that performance factor is just my opinion and is debatable.

Bottom line, there are cheap composite sticks on the market. There is no need to spend $300 on a stick for a squirt. Buy one under $50 and they'll be fine. It's up to you, as the parent, to keep the costs of hockey equipment in check. There are affordable equipment options available on the market.

Ok, that was way off topic.
Agreed. I look at it kind of like golf equipment. So many people want the newest, hottest driver. I have used the same driver for 8-10 years. I don't think spending 300-500 dollars to get a few more yards of distance will drastically change my game. Same thing with hockey equipment. Even when the kids were in high school, we would buy year old close out sticks for $100 a stick. My kids never complained. When we went to buy elbow pads, or knee pads, they really didn't care if it was a $50-60 set or $100-120 set, as long as they were comfortable. Never got the newest, most expensive skates either. The only piece we spent more money on was helmets. We were careful to make sure they had a good helmet that fit right and switched them out every 2 years or after a major collision. There are definitely ways to keep the equipment costs at a reasonable level if you are willing to say "no" to your kids and other parents.

Post Reply