NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply
old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:27 pm

U.S.A. Hockey wants to do away with checking for 11 and 12 yr plds. They say the kids are not physically or mentally advanced to protect themselfs. This would start fall of 2011.[Next season]

scrapiron
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:35 pm

Post by scrapiron » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:31 pm

It might limit the number of head injuries.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:38 pm

I think that is the main thing. They mention development, but I don't agree with that.The point pertaining to Pee-wee aged brains not being able to recover from a concussion and being more susceptible makes me think yea maybe a good thing.Part of me thinks of football without hitting and red flags go up. So I guess I don't know. Mixed feeling on it.

MN_Hcky_Coach
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Minnesota

Post by MN_Hcky_Coach » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:44 pm

Yes I read that too. I'm not sure it will be such a bad rule. They want to put a program in place to start teaching body contact and angling in Mites that would progress through Bantams. The purpose is to emphasize skill development and angling skills. I know that each year when we use the word angling with our bantams they have very little understanding of what we mean. However, they consistently enjoy flying into corners to take someone's head off, even though they give up the defensive side of the puck. Each year this habit takes months to break.

I will wait until I hear specifics about the program that USA hockey wants to instill before I pass judgement. We all know the concussion issue is the real deal with developing brains and these new helmets really don't stop them. Perhaps less head hunting and focus on more skill without taking body contact out of the sport is the right way to go for young players, at least while their brains are still vulnerable.

scrapiron
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:35 pm

Post by scrapiron » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:48 pm

Mixed thoughts. What about checking only at the A level for Peewee?

Snowmass
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:28 pm

Post by Snowmass » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:56 pm

scrapiron wrote:Mixed thoughts. What about checking only at the A level for Peewee?
That would be stupid. Are the 'A' kids' heads stronger or less concussion/injury prone?

scrapiron
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:35 pm

Post by scrapiron » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:42 pm

First of all it was a thought. That is why it was a question.

A level players head are not any stronger than other levels. An A player does have a higher skill level that might make them better equipped to play in a checking game. Again this is just a though.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:47 pm

What about the kids that have already checked for a year?? Just tell them shut it down I guess... Should be interesting try-outs next year. AAA [summer] teams this summer will still be checking.

O-townClown
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:54 pm

This was discussed about two months ago. Since the plan is to lower the age for body contact, I think this is great. It makes no sense to me to hold off until Pee Wees.
Be kind. Rewind.

Marty McSorely
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:01 am

Post by Marty McSorely » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:24 pm

It also makes sense as a physical development. Pee Wee's seem to have a huge size disparity compared to Bantams. It also may keep kids in the game two years longer.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:51 pm

In Forest Lake we start football in forth grade. That's first year squirts.[In Mn]

goaliewithfoggedglasses
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:51 pm

Post by goaliewithfoggedglasses » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:08 pm

old goalie85 wrote:In Forest Lake we start football in forth grade. That's first year squirts.[In Mn]
Yes, but they don't have boards in football.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:29 pm

Good point., I'm just going back and forth on this. Seems like a no brainer. No pun intended.If it prevents children from getting head injurys no" choice ".[Unless Bernie lets them check]

defense
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: right here

Post by defense » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:36 pm

I hate it. I see I am in the minority. That's OK.

Briefly: I have a big problem with putting two teams of 14 and 15 year olds on the ice in their very FIRST contact hockey game. We are talking adrenaline, adolescence....young teen boys .... get the point. I just think that letting them learn about contact in a full speed game at 14 for the first time will be a mistake.

I understand that they want to start "training" the kids in lesser type of body contact at a lot younger ages... I love that idea. I wish they talked about protecting the puck, body position etc... a lot earlier ... I think the more advanced mites would gain a lot from it. I get frustrated watching mite practices and scrimmages when the coaches could be offering basic tips in those areas..instead they ignore it or don't even know about it.

My opinion is simply that more and more serious injuries will likely occur if bantams is the first level that body checking is allowed.

gorilla1
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:03 am

Post by gorilla1 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:05 pm

It's a tough one. Would it help to have more severe penalties for checking from behind or contact to the head? Part of the problem i see is that too often checking from behind or contact to the head is only a 1:30 penalty. The 1:30 penalty is too short. How about first one is a10 minute and the second is a 2 game suspension. 3 is a bigger suspension and 4 you go in front of board. Cheching from behind and contact to the head right now is now big deal and their is little incentive for the kids to avoid this.

hockeyfan74
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 1:02 pm

Post by hockeyfan74 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:37 pm

I think it is idiotic! Then again I think a lot of things MN Hockey does are. I usually try to refrain from posting on subjects like this, but I think Mn hockey has been heading in wrong direction for a few years now. They limit the younger athletes already too much. Why not put an education program out on how to check and how to take a check. To wait until bantams to start hitting is to late. The kids are so big and strong at that age and if they don't know how to hit or have experience in hitting the injuries will go up at Bantams. So we save a few Pee-wee injuries to increase them at Bantams. Pee-wees is the perfect age to start hitting - just put some guidelines in to help enforce that kids are learning the proper way to hit and take a hit. I have a first year pee-wee and he knows how to get low and strong to avoid the big hit and he knows that the purpose of a body check is to separate the opponent from the puck not separate his head from his shoulders. He does play at the A level so he sees some very big, strong and skilled players and he has done fine all year. In fact I have yet to see any major injuries in any of his games that are a result of checking. In my opinion just another mistake by Mn Hockey - which does not surprise me. As much as I don't like certain programs out there if this rule goes in effect we may have to look at other options next year.

starmvp
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: State of Hockey

Post by starmvp » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:39 pm

I have mixed feelings about this one, but I think checking is needed at the peewee level. Some kids only play bantams one year and if they only have one year of checking, they will not be ready for high school.

SWPrez
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:48 am

Post by SWPrez » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:43 pm

If they are going to remove checking, they should put in a program at the peewee level that teaches kids how to properly check (defined as separating a player from the puck) and allow that kind of checking to still occur.

European youth hockey teaches proper body positioning and removing a player from the puck through checking the players hands.

Unfortunately, North American hockey - combined with the invention of facemasks - has caused kids to go higher and higher with their checks. Further, the emphasis on a big hit or "finishing your check (when a player has already relaxed because the puck is on the other side of the rink)" being coached by coaches has made the game too dangerous.

This year our association has had a kid backboarded and out for the season due to a high, but legal hit (the same game had two prior checking from behinds). I have seen kids in the past get hurt just as seriously (temporarily paralyzed due to someone 'finishing a check').

For the hockey purists that feel it needs to be part of the game, sign your kid up for rugby and let them get their concussions and neck injuries there. Kids are faster, stronger, and the checking is higher and higher - and the boards are not padded.

Never thought I would say this.....but it is time to change the game for the safety of the kids. Just as the hooking, grabbing, and slashing got cracked down on hard a few years ago....may take a year to implement, but would be better for the kids and the game.

defense
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: right here

Post by defense » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:01 pm

SWPrez wrote:If they are going to remove checking, they should put in a program at the peewee level that teaches kids how to properly check (defined as separating a player from the puck) and allow that kind of checking to still occur.

European youth hockey teaches proper body positioning and removing a player from the puck through checking the players hands.

Unfortunately, North American hockey - combined with the invention of facemasks - has caused kids to go higher and higher with their checks. Further, the emphasis on a big hit or "finishing your check (when a player has already relaxed because the puck is on the other side of the rink)" being coached by coaches has made the game too dangerous.

This year our association has had a kid backboarded and out for the season due to a high, but legal hit (the same game had two prior checking from behinds). I have seen kids in the past get hurt just as seriously (temporarily paralyzed due to someone 'finishing a check').

For the hockey purists that feel it needs to be part of the game, sign your kid up for rugby and let them get their concussions and neck injuries there. Kids are faster, stronger, and the checking is higher and higher - and the boards are not padded.

Never thought I would say this.....but it is time to change the game for the safety of the kids. Just as the hooking, grabbing, and slashing got cracked down on hard a few years ago....may take a year to implement, but would be better for the kids and the game.

The bottom line is instead of having 12 and 13 year olds making sloppy hits on eachother you're going to have much bigger and stronger 14 and 15 year olds making more sloppy hits on eachother. It may not seem like there is much difference between 12 and 13 compared to 14 and 15...but i think all agree that the bantam game is a lot faster than the peewee game.
Think of it like this: NASCAR has an age limit to when a driver can get in the top series. This is because a driver younger than that age is not mature mentally or physically to compete at its highest level. Instead drivers have to run lesser series before they compete in Cup races. Now, in order to stop younger drivers from potentially getting seriously hurt should we stop them from racing cars and confine them to normal driving or go karts?????? And then when they turn 18 let them loose on a 2 mile paved speedway??????
Getting experience in the real game against players of the same level is NOT a detriment to the game of hockey.
And finally, I will not put my kid in rugby because for one this is America not Australia, and for two I want my kid to play hockey, why don't you put your kid in pond hockey????? or better yet basketball were the potential for injury is far greater????

SWPrez
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:48 am

Post by SWPrez » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:16 pm

defense wrote:

The bottom line is instead of having 12 and 13 year olds making sloppy hits on eachother you're going to have much bigger and stronger 14 and 15 year olds making more sloppy hits on eachother. It may not seem like there is much difference between 12 and 13 compared to 14 and 15...but i think all agree that the bantam game is a lot faster than the peewee game.
Think of it like this: NASCAR has an age limit to when a driver can get in the top series. This is because a driver younger than that age is not mature mentally or physically to compete at its highest level. Instead drivers have to run lesser series before they compete in Cup races. Now, in order to stop younger drivers from potentially getting seriously hurt should we stop them from racing cars and confine them to normal driving or go karts?????? And then when they turn 18 let them loose on a 2 mile paved speedway??????
Getting experience in the real game against players of the same level is NOT a detriment to the game of hockey.
And finally, I will not put my kid in rugby because for one this is America not Australia, and for two I want my kid to play hockey, why don't you put your kid in pond hockey????? or better yet basketball were the potential for injury is far greater????
defense, my first sentence was pretty clear. If you are going to remove 'checking' as we currently know it (which I believe the time has come), teach proper checking technique and remove the high hitting and late hitting completely. I would be OK with this at bantams and high school too. Tired of seeing kids hauled out on meat wagons.

defense
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: right here

Post by defense » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:20 pm

SWPrez wrote:
defense wrote:

The bottom line is instead of having 12 and 13 year olds making sloppy hits on eachother you're going to have much bigger and stronger 14 and 15 year olds making more sloppy hits on eachother. It may not seem like there is much difference between 12 and 13 compared to 14 and 15...but i think all agree that the bantam game is a lot faster than the peewee game.
Think of it like this: NASCAR has an age limit to when a driver can get in the top series. This is because a driver younger than that age is not mature mentally or physically to compete at its highest level. Instead drivers have to run lesser series before they compete in Cup races. Now, in order to stop younger drivers from potentially getting seriously hurt should we stop them from racing cars and confine them to normal driving or go karts?????? And then when they turn 18 let them loose on a 2 mile paved speedway??????
Getting experience in the real game against players of the same level is NOT a detriment to the game of hockey.
And finally, I will not put my kid in rugby because for one this is America not Australia, and for two I want my kid to play hockey, why don't you put your kid in pond hockey????? or better yet basketball were the potential for injury is far greater????
defense, my first sentence was pretty clear. If you are going to remove 'checking' as we currently know it (which I believe the time has come), teach proper checking technique and remove the high hitting and late hitting completely. I would be OK with this at bantams and high school too. Tired of seeing kids hauled out on meat wagons.
Oh, I get it. I also agree kind of, change the whole mind set of checking. I don't think enough time is spent on it the way it is. You could see how it may be read differently. But I do not think that removing checking as a rule is the answer. In my opinion creating rules to protect the players ala the NFL seems more logical. Think increased penalties for high hits, head hits, hits with the intent on injuring. Take that along with a littel moroe intense training on using your body and soon the game will take on a different look.

Mailman
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:08 pm

Post by Mailman » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:45 pm

Not in favor. Mainly because, legal or not, there is going to be checking at Pee Wee level, sometimes accidental, sometimes not. You can make all the rules against it you want.

And then in doing so, we have, yet ANOTHER, gray area of officiating.

If they're going to do anything, make a headshot a massive penalty, accidental or not.

But that won't happen; no one has the balls. Much easier way out to just push a blanket no checking instead.

Checking won't occur if theres a rule against it: yeah, right :roll:

USA Hockey is getting a bit to power hungry for my tastes.

northwoods oldtimer
Posts: 2649
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:01 pm

Post by northwoods oldtimer » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:49 pm

USA Hockey is ruining the sport. What a bunch of panty waisted drips.

MN_Hcky_Coach
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Minnesota

Post by MN_Hcky_Coach » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:33 am

I think the main purpose of the rule would be to reduce head injuries and concussions that result because of big open ice hits and irresponsible head contact hits along the boards. Let's be honest, having more knowledge about brain development and concussions comes with more responsibility. The NHL and NCAA have set a standard in recent years of cracking down on blind side open ice hits and head contact along the boards because of the concussion and brain damage risk. In these leagues, suspensions and monetary fines are doled out in an effort to reduce the behavior.

Since USA hockey cannot hand out fines and (from experience) suspensions do not work at all on youth players, the next best option is to teach proper contact techniques.

I am not certain that taking checking out of peewees is the right thing to do, but I am all in favor of a mandatory program to teach angling and body checking techniques to young players. Women's hockey does not allow "body checking" but the speed of the game and competitiveness increase in the last 10 years has led to contact being inevitable and tolerated.

If taking checking out of peewees will, in fact, reduce the number of concussions to our 12/13 year old's growing/fragile brains then let's take it out, but not if it will increase the problem 1-2 years later at Bantams. Hockey Canada teaches types of body contact and rub outs at the higher mite ages and still focuses on skill development, instead of separating a head from a body. USA hockey is not wrong in considering this issue, but they must create an appropriate system to teach the game, checking and all.

For those old school hockey folks out there, the only thing I can say is I feel your pain, I am a traditionalist too, but you must admit we know more about brain development now then we did then, and just as you would not take your kid's face mask away, USA hockey is actually trying to protect the game and the kids.

HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:46 am

old goalie85 wrote:Good point., I'm just going back and forth on this. Seems like a no brainer. No pun intended.If it prevents children from getting head injurys no" choice ".[Unless Bernie lets them check]
Really? You had to go there yet again? Grow up.
Solving all of hockey's problems since Feb 2009.

Post Reply