NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

silentbutdeadly3139
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Take it out.

Post by silentbutdeadly3139 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:22 pm

nofinish wrote:
woodywood wrote:Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

30 years ago as a youth here in MN we learned to check in squirts. I played thru high school varsity as "one of the little guys" and my worst injury was a pulled groin. I credit this to learning early to play with your head up and prepare yourself to give and take checks.

Now that I have coached mites thru bantams by far the worst (dangerous) checks occur in first year of peewees when they learn how to give and take hits.
Woody, you do not want to introduce kids to checking when they are the size of bantams, it would be disasterous.

Coaches need to teach better, refs need to enforce better. Maybe allow more "body bumping" in squirts so they learn before they get too big.
Not sure 30 years ago is a good comparison. IMO, with all the extra training and playing during the summer kids are faster than they were before resulting in more dangerous collisions, perhaps like Bantams were 30 years ago. So any size ( and kids are bigger now ) and skill disparity will be more dangerous. The thing that makes the most sense has been said many times in this thread and summed up best by NSHA Rules :iminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands". and Ref need to start enforcing the rules in place now more consistently.

hockeypittsburgh01
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:09 am

no checking in pee wees???

Post by hockeypittsburgh01 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:07 am

Wow, this is truly baffling to me.

Let me give a little background. I am a Level 3 USA hockey coach. I also coach midget football and little league baseball. My son plays all 3, but I do not coach him in hockey.

I have heard two proposals being considered at USA Hockey. The first being making mite games cross ice (Another joke). And of course the topic in this forum, eliminating checking at the Pee Wee level of youth hockey.

I guess my first question would be, if this is such a great idea, why wasnt it implemented at the outset of youth hockey? Why not 10 years ago? Why not last year??

My gut feeling is the answer lies in the player participation numbers that are tabulated and watched closely by USA Hockey. I took my level 3 certification several years ago and one of the topics was the drop off of player participation from squirts to pee wees. This data was shown to the entire class and we were told by someone from mid atlantic hockey that this was indeed a big concern for USA Hockey.

My feeling is that there are a lot of kids who like hockey but are not sure if they want to be subjected to the physical side of the game as they move up the ranks. Either on their own or with their parents, they decide not to participate in hockey because of the hitting. Parents may not want to admit it to themselves, but they may just have a son who is not up to being physical, and that's OK. Why is there NOT a drop off from mites to squirts? If USA Hockey was to adopt the "no checking in pee wees" model, I guarantee participation at the pee wee level would increase immediately.

There is a very popular youth program in Pittsburgh called the Amateur Penguins which skates teams from mites through midgets. They are skating 5 mite teams, 4-5 squirt teams and only 1-2 peewee teams. Why would this be?

Youth hockey in pittsburgh is more of a boutique/gourmet sport as I like to call it. A vast majority of the kids are from better socioeconomic conditions than your "average" pittsburgh kid. I also see a huge difference in the type of kid that plays football vs the type of kid that plays hockey. It is my believe that the football kid, on average, is more willing to engage in contact than the hockey kid. My football players for the most part are willing to hit and be hit. Many of the hockey players I see that play with my son are a bit "soft", for lack of a better word. That is not to say that all football players are not "soft".

Also in western PA, I have seen a dichotomy in the athletic "path" pursued by boys.

1. There are the football, baseball, basketball, wrestling, types (lower socioeconomic backgrounds)

2. There are the hockey, soccer, lacrosse types ( more afflence in general)

I can only think of a few exceptions to this rule, at least among the kids that i see.

The bottom line is that I think youth hockey at the mite/squirt level has a lot of "soft" kids that dont want any part of the game once the hitting starts and again, there is nothing wrong with that. But perhaps USAH should consider having a pee wee classification that does not have checking or slapshots and the parents and players can decide.

I think all coaches have seen the very good, high scoring player from the mite and squirt level become less of a factor once the physical element is allowed in the game.

In western Pennsylvania (I know this is not true in the state of Minnesota), our local high school hockey team has tryouts beginning in JULY!! and regular practices start in AUGUST which is RIDICULOUS! So most kids in western PA cannot play both football and hockey. In Minnesota, hockey tryouts are not until November and that is when they should have tryouts and I know that many boys play both football and hockey.

So what is the relevance you ask? Being a football coach, I know many parents who do not want their youngster playing youth football because they have the misconception that it is a "violent" game. I am serious, that is what certain parents think. Most of our "injuries" involve a kid that gets stepped on or at most twists an ankle, and many of those I believe result from the kid just wanting to come off the field, because he is tired, getting manhandled by the guy on the other side, etc., and having nothing to do with an injury.

To me, it is more about the self preservation of USA Hockey and much less about player injuries.

I guarantee there are more injuries among those who participate in soccer than in hockey or football, both on an absolute and relative scale.

Leave it alone USAH!!

Wrister
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:57 am

No Checking until Bantams

Post by Wrister » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:53 am

It all comes down to the coaches. It is the old 20/80 rule. 80% of the coaches out there in Pee Wees know how to coach the check. They tell their players how and when to give and take a check and how to play the body and seperate the opposing player from the puck. It is the other 20% who tell their players to go out knock the other team's player's head off so as to win at all cost. You see and know who they are in both association and summer AAA. Their players aren't coached properly or they feel the only way to compete is by intimitation.
Their lack of proper coaching and their own egos impacts the other 80% of the coaches who want to properly introduce checking into the peewee level age

goldy313
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:15 pm

Really nice post hockeypittsburgh01.

It's, retention, a subject matter I've dealt with for a number of years and from my experiance it seems Peewees is the level where a couple of things happen.....

1) The recreational kid is pretty much forced out as hockey becomes a bigger commitment in time, money, and resources. The kids and parents get beat with you need to do this and that to get better and they decide whether it's worth it or not.

2) Hockey is expensive, the borderline socioeconmic kids are forced out. Even in Minnesota famlies making under $50,000 just don't play hockey in most of the state and where they do it's not in the numbers it once was.

Moving checking, in my opinion at least, won't change anything in regards to retention. USA Hockey could do a lot more to get kids playing by following baseballs example and having 2 distinct paths for kids, a recreational path and a developmental path.

Deep Breath

Post by Deep Breath » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:06 am

If some folks are worried that little johnny is gonna get his block knocked off when he becomes a PW, those same folks should do a better job of training and instructing those kids when they are mites and squirts to improve their skating and handle the puck with their heads up. Having coached in an associaiton for three years at the youngest levels, I have banged my head against the wall at the resistance you get when you try to encourage skating, skating, skating, skating in practice. Instead, you will see a mite practice broken up into "stations" where kids are told to do certain things, even though a vast majority of them don't know how to properly skate. Get them to skate properly, they will get more comfortable on the ice and they will be able to do a lot more with the puck, including skating with their heads up. Watching my oldest at the 2nd year squirt level, it is stunning the number of kids who are on Squirt A teams that simply carry the puck through the nuetral zone with their eyes focused squarely on the puck. Regardless of how much that kid weighs, he is going to get destroyed by someone. Teach the youngest bunch how to skate properly and carry the puck with their head up and they will be fine once the checking starts.

Bronc
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:24 pm

Post by Bronc » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:16 am

What this topic needs to be relabeled to is "How can USAH change the rules to keep more kids paying to play hockey?".[/quote]

Changing the rules to bring the majority down so the minority can keep up. "Priceless!!!"

We wonder why people have a entitlement attitude? It starts young and continues to perpetuate. The apples don't fall far from the trees.

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

Post by old goalie85 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:42 pm

Nice post Pitt01!!!!!

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:04 am

Its about developing the game of hockey, it's about developing the players that play the game. You all latch on to a side note about safely while missing the main point. Our players get goaded into thinking that once you can hit, you should. This is not the way the game is played at any significant level except here. It's not played that way in the NHL for heavens sake. Watch an NHL game closely. Other than a fight for TV value, there are very few "Bantam like" hits. They are well placed and well timed. This is all about getting our nation of hockey players to learn to play the game in the way it has evolved world wide. The only reason USA Hockey needs to make rules to change our way of thinking is jack asses that think the game should be played differently, as they live with the players and have the 24 hour influence. Wake up and step into the 21st century of hockey. The game of hockey has changed, and we need to keep up. You all get off too much on some crappy put them through the boards hit. The player that delivered that hit will be in no check bar league before you know it. That player wont get drafted, or represent his country in an international event. He'll just be a goon that can't skate or handle the puck.

Oh yeah it's about keeping kids that are afraid to check in the game so USA Hockey can get their money. Give me a break or get a clue, I'm ok with either. What a joke. Maybe you should be in charge? We'd be so much more advanced if you were.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:38 am

This should exponentially increase the number of pony tails on peewee ice.

DMom
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:46 am

Post by DMom » Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:48 am

SECoach wrote:Its about developing the game of hockey, it's about developing the players that play the game. You all latch on to a side note about safely while missing the main point. Our players get goaded into thinking that once you can hit, you should. This is not the way the game is played at any significant level except here. It's not played that way in the NHL for heavens sake. Watch an NHL game closely. Other than a fight for TV value, there are very few "Bantam like" hits. They are well placed and well timed. This is all about getting our nation of hockey players to learn to play the game in the way it has evolved world wide. The only reason USA Hockey needs to make rules to change our way of thinking is jack asses that think the game should be played differently, as they live with the players and have the 24 hour influence. Wake up and step into the 21st century of hockey. The game of hockey has changed, and we need to keep up. You all get off too much on some crappy put them through the boards hit. The player that delivered that hit will be in no check bar league before you know it. That player wont get drafted, or represent his country in an international event. He'll just be a goon that can't skate or handle the puck.

Oh yeah it's about keeping kids that are afraid to check in the game so USA Hockey can get their money. Give me a break or get a clue, I'm ok with either. What a joke. Maybe you should be in charge? We'd be so much more advanced if you were.
I believe it is about the money. People have invested tens of thousands of dollars into their kids and they can't believe that just because johnny won't take a check or hold onto the puck long enough to actually make a pass, that the glory that was theirs vicariously is now gone. Get a life.

If the game is only played by thugs here in the USA than why do our teams get thugged to death by Canadian teams? Have you watched a Canadian bantam team beat up on USA bantam teams lately??? They don't even try to follow the rules, let alone coach them.

I know we have Canadians who follow this forum and I'll tell you that from the time my pre-peewee was speared after the game shaking hands, by a lovely Thunder Bay team, I've never watched a game where the Canadians were not much more physical. 'Splain that.

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

Post by hockeyfan74 » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:55 am

SE your posts are hilarious. I love reading stuff that comes form someone that has ZERO understanding of the game. Keep up the entertaining post. I should thank you because humor is a great way to start my morning so thanks for getting my day off to a great start. :lol:

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 am

This should exponentially increase the number of pony tails on peewee ice.
Funny and accurate. First your PeeWee son lost his spot cuz he avoided contact and now he loses it to a girl.

Bronc
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:24 pm

Post by Bronc » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:01 am

observer wrote:
This should exponentially increase the number of pony tails on peewee ice.
Funny and accurate post. First your PeeWee son lost his spot cuz he avoided contact and now he loses it to a girl.
This whole discussion is other than entertaining a waste of time:

- Canada won Olympics
- Canada has the most NHL players per country

We think rather than emmulate their model (lots of skating, games, slap shots, contact, etc). We will start our own politically correct model of:

- Fewer games
- No slap shots until PW
- Take even more contact out of the game
- No touch up until HS

I agree with DMom this all starts with some poor little Johnny who parents think he could of been somebody if it weren't that some big meany pushed him around on the ice and he decided making snow angels was more fun.

These discussions are good for the forum but to say the least frustrating if we are serious at all in considering the change.

We have house hockey and no checking leagues fot those not interested, we need to quit trying to pull everybody down.

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:45 pm

hockeyfan74 wrote:SE your posts are hilarious. I love reading stuff that comes form someone that has ZERO understanding of the game. Keep up the entertaining post. I should thank you because humor is a great way to start my morning so thanks for getting my day off to a great start. :lol:
Thanks for your insightful comments on the topic. I can see your knowledge runs deep and I'll do my best to honor that vast knowledge. Here's some comments from some others that have absolutely ZERO understanding of the game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/sport ... ngs&st=cse

Note the phrase: Hitting with total disregard for the puck. Oh yeah, he's just another that knows absolutley ZERO about the game. Minnesota and USA Hockey is on the right path. Of course the people who spend their lives working to better the game should bow to some dude who thinks it's still 1974.

HockeyGuy81
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm

Post by HockeyGuy81 » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:13 pm

Some great quotes from that article:

"Although there are no reliable statistics" (standard)

"Penalties for hits to the head dropped from 12.4 per 100 youth games in 2004-2005 to 2 per 100 games the next season, a Mayo Clinic study said. By 2008-9, no calls were made for hits to the head." (Well, that's just flat out laughable. Hits to the head continued to be called. "No calls" for hits to the head? Where does that statistic come from???)

"A reason for the decline is that a major penalty, or a two-minute minor with an accompanying 10-minute misconduct, uses up all, or almost all, of a team’s penalty allotment." (When a kid is about to run someone from behind, he doesn't all of a sudden stop because he's thinking about a FPP. You can say he/she does, but in the heat of the moment, no)

"At first there was plenty of resistance to the fair-play point." (There still is)

"“Kids know if they’re close to losing the fair-play point going into the third period, and they’re careful,” Terwilliger said. “You hear them on the bench telling each other, ‘Hey guys, be smart.’ They police themselves.”" (nope, because if changing your entire game to not lose a FPP means maybe losing the actual game, you won't change at all. It's 2 pts vs 1. And in peewees, the kids barely know what's going on from minute to minute, they are rarely conscious of the FPP)

"But the hits from behind, the overt aggression, it’s just not happening anymore.” (Really??? Then why is this discussion forum even taking place?)

“When you go to our state tournament and regional tournaments,” he said, “everyone will sit around and talk about how, boy, these are better hockey players than we had a few years ago.” (Name any sport, and the players are better not than they were a few years ago. Kids are bigger and faster now. That's just the way it is)

"Despite having won the state title last year, Smith is still galled by the loss of 4 fair-play points — it cost his team the Metro League championship." (Yep, I'm sure the kids were really bummed about that too. Winning a state championship was probably not as excited because they didn't win the "Metro League.")

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

Post by hockeyfan74 » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:20 pm

SE - Thanks for proving my point. You really make this easy. First 74 has nothing to do with hockey in 74 but nice try. My point was that MOST people on here that are against taking checking away from pee-wees are not talking about the BIG hits as you would say. In fact if you would look back at my previous posts from this thread you would know that. In my opinion USA hockey is making a BIG mistake. I have said earlier that they should move checking back to squirts and focus on teaching the proper technique at younger ages instead of waiting. I have taught my oldest boy who is a first year pee-wee how to angle and go through the hands since he was a mite. I also worked with him on how to get low and strong along the boards and keep your feet moving through checks during the summer. I told him just because he is playing pee-wees his game shouldn't change. His goal is not to separate the other players head from his shoulders, instead it is simply to separate the other player from the puck. He has not taking a BIG hit all year because he know how to take a hit and he plays heads up hockey. I am doing the same thing with his younger brother who is a mite right now. It is about educating the players and teaching them the right reasons to hit and how to be ready for a hit. By waiting until bantams they are only going to make the injuries more serious. The unfortunate part is some players can't wait until they can hit so they can blow someone up - not smart, but that is the way it is. So now if you wait until bantams you will have bigger, stronger and faster kids trying to take someones head off. Tell me how that makes sense. The size disparity is also way bigger at Bantams than squirts. Why not teach them when they are smaller, weaker and slower so they injuries are less - because it is not about injuries it is about money. That is the main reason USA hockey makes most of their decisions.

HansBrinker
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:34 pm

Post by HansBrinker » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:44 pm

Large Canadian study came out this summer. From JAMA

Risk of Injury Associated With Body Checking Among Youth Ice Hockey Players
Carolyn A. Emery, PhD, BScPT; Jian Kang, PhD; Ian Shrier, MD, PhD; Claude Goulet, PhD; Brent E. Hagel, PhD; Brian W. Benson, MD, PhD; Alberto Nettel-Aguirre, PhD; Jenelle R. McAllister, MSc; Gavin M. Hamilton, MSc; Willem H. Meeuwisse, MD, PhD

AbstractContext Ice hockey has one of the highest sport participation and injury rates in youth in Canada. Body checking is the predominant mechanism of injury in leagues in which it is permitted.

Objective To determine if risk of injury and concussion differ for Pee Wee (ages 11-12 years) ice hockey players in a league in which body checking is permitted (Alberta, Canada) vs a league in which body checking is not permitted (Quebec, Canada).

Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective cohort study conducted in Alberta and Quebec during the 2007-2008 Pee Wee ice hockey season. Participants (N = 2154) were players from teams in the top 60% of divisions of play.

Incidence rate ratios adjusted for cluster based on Poisson regression for game- and practice-related injury and concussion.

Results Seventy-four Pee Wee teams from Alberta (n = 1108 players) and 76 Pee Wee teams from Quebec (n = 1046 players) completed the study. In total, there were 241 injuries (78 concussions) reported in Alberta (85 077 exposure-hours) and 91 injuries (23 concussions) reported in Quebec (82 099 exposure-hours). For game-related injuries, the Alberta vs Quebec incidence rate ratio was 3.26 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.31-4.60 [n = 209 and n = 70 for Alberta and Quebec, respectively]) for all injuries, 3.88 (95% CI, 1.91-7.89 [n = 73 and n = 20]) for concussion, 3.30 (95% CI, 1.77-6.17 [n = 51 and n = 16]) for severe injury (time loss, >7 days), and 3.61 (95% CI, 1.16-11.23 [n=14 and n=4]) for severe concussion (time loss, >10 days). The estimated absolute risk reduction (injuries per 1000 player-hours) that would be achieved if body checking were not permitted in Alberta was 2.84 (95% CI, 2.18-3.49) for all game-related injuries, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.40-1.04) for severe injuries, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.70-1.46) for concussion, and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.04-0.37) for severe concussion. There was no difference between provinces for practice-related injuries.

Conclusion
Among 11- to 12-year-old ice hockey players, playing in a league in which body checking is permitted compared with playing in a league in which body checking is not permitted was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of all game-related injuries and the categories of concussion, severe injury, and severe concussion.

I am sure USAH feels some legal risk when there are studies like this in the medical literature. No matter your personal experience, these are very big numbers.

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:39 am

hockeyfan74 wrote:SE - Thanks for proving my point. You really make this easy. First 74 has nothing to do with hockey in 74 but nice try. My point was that MOST people on here that are against taking checking away from pee-wees are not talking about the BIG hits as you would say. In fact if you would look back at my previous posts from this thread you would know that. In my opinion USA hockey is making a BIG mistake. I have said earlier that they should move checking back to squirts and focus on teaching the proper technique at younger ages instead of waiting. I have taught my oldest boy who is a first year pee-wee how to angle and go through the hands since he was a mite. I also worked with him on how to get low and strong along the boards and keep your feet moving through checks during the summer. I told him just because he is playing pee-wees his game shouldn't change. His goal is not to separate the other players head from his shoulders, instead it is simply to separate the other player from the puck. He has not taking a BIG hit all year because he know how to take a hit and he plays heads up hockey. I am doing the same thing with his younger brother who is a mite right now. It is about educating the players and teaching them the right reasons to hit and how to be ready for a hit. By waiting until bantams they are only going to make the injuries more serious. The unfortunate part is some players can't wait until they can hit so they can blow someone up - not smart, but that is the way it is. So now if you wait until bantams you will have bigger, stronger and faster kids trying to take someones head off. Tell me how that makes sense. The size disparity is also way bigger at Bantams than squirts. Why not teach them when they are smaller, weaker and slower so they injuries are less - because it is not about injuries it is about money. That is the main reason USA hockey makes most of their decisions.
I'd tell you how that makes sense, but I clearly have ZERO knowledge of the game. You CLEARLY are a true expert after spending so much time teaching your son how to go through the hands. I vote that you make all the decisions from now on and laugh and mock anyone else who has an opinion. I bet you are fun to sit and discuss something in person with.

elliott70
Posts: 13703
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:41 am

HockeyGuy81 wrote:Some great quotes from that article:

"Although there are no reliable statistics" (standard)

"Penalties for hits to the head dropped from 12.4 per 100 youth games in 2004-2005 to 2 per 100 games the next season, a Mayo Clinic study said. By 2008-9, no calls were made for hits to the head." (Well, that's just flat out laughable. Hits to the head continued to be called. "No calls" for hits to the head? Where does that statistic come from???)

"A reason for the decline is that a major penalty, or a two-minute minor with an accompanying 10-minute misconduct, uses up all, or almost all, of a team’s penalty allotment." (When a kid is about to run someone from behind, he doesn't all of a sudden stop because he's thinking about a FPP. You can say he/she does, but in the heat of the moment, no)

"At first there was plenty of resistance to the fair-play point." (There still is)

"“Kids know if they’re close to losing the fair-play point going into the third period, and they’re careful,” Terwilliger said. “You hear them on the bench telling each other, ‘Hey guys, be smart.’ They police themselves.”" (nope, because if changing your entire game to not lose a FPP means maybe losing the actual game, you won't change at all. It's 2 pts vs 1. And in peewees, the kids barely know what's going on from minute to minute, they are rarely conscious of the FPP)

"But the hits from behind, the overt aggression, it’s just not happening anymore.” (Really??? Then why is this discussion forum even taking place?)

“When you go to our state tournament and regional tournaments,” he said, “everyone will sit around and talk about how, boy, these are better hockey players than we had a few years ago.” (Name any sport, and the players are better not than they were a few years ago. Kids are bigger and faster now. That's just the way it is)

"Despite having won the state title last year, Smith is still galled by the loss of 4 fair-play points — it cost his team the Metro League championship." (Yep, I'm sure the kids were really bummed about that too. Winning a state championship was probably not as excited because they didn't win the "Metro League.")


FPP were persented to MH board as a means to measure the HEP program - not as means to and end.

A quote from the major person promoting FPP "we need to make kids less aggressive".

This same person went on to tell the MH board a story of thei person's young football player that quit the game because it was too violent.

I spoke to every other district director after this presentation. Not one supported the FPP. We were told that we would have input in how this would come about and be used. It did not work that way.

Bronc
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:24 pm

Post by Bronc » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:00 am

I spoke to every other district director after this presentation. Not one supported the FPP. We were told that we would have input in how this would come about and be used. It did not work that way.[/quote]

Do we want children safe, absolutely. Are there risks to any and all activities, absolutley.

As they continue to point out injury studies, how many of those hurt were from penalty hits (the player hitting them got a penalty) currently already in place. I would imagine most of them were. So in that case we have rules in place for protection.

Hitting is part of the game to ensure you have developed proper skill. Again a Canada reference the most skilled player in all of hockey (Crosby) came from that system and it did not hinder him, part of what makes him so awesome.

We actually introduced tackling at 2nd and 3rd grade in football so the younger kids got more comfortable with it at an early age many years ago. Our numbers continue to climb and retention has had an increase as those players got older.

You ride a bike you wear a helmet, what next no chain.

Some kids just are not that competitive or do not like physical play of any type. Some really enjoy it and if you take it away you lose them.

A lot depends on which camp you and your child fall into.

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:29 am

Please allow me to clear up my position. Body contact is currently allowed at all levels of youth hockey including girls. In squirts and girls hockey, well coached players learn to use contact for it's intended purpose. Giving players 2 more years to learn the proper use of angling, body positioning, and tactical body contact, in my opinion, would go to great lengths to improving the skill and playing level of American players. When "checking" is introduced they will be more seasoned on the proper use if they have been taught correctly. It is not easy to develop the habits of it's proper use and takes time. It also would allow players to become more comfortable with the whole concept. Yes, some would still leave the game due to "fear or weakness" as you propose. Hockey is not for everyone. In my mind concussions, injuries, etc is a valid reason but is secondary to providing more opportunity for our players to learn how to use contact and checking to the benifit of them and their teams.

The arguements that this is about money are ridiculous. If intended to keep more players in the game it's not about the money, it's about keeping more players in the game by allowing them more time to be successful. I see no harm in that.

Bronc
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:24 pm

Post by Bronc » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:54 am

SECoach wrote:Please allow me to clear up my position. Body contact is currently allowed at all levels of youth hockey including girls. In squirts and girls hockey, well coached players learn to use contact for it's intended purpose. Giving players 2 more years to learn the proper use of angling, body positioning, and tactical body contact, in my opinion, would go to great lengths to improving the skill and playing level of American players. When "checking" is introduced they will be more seasoned on the proper use if they have been taught correctly. It is not easy to develop the habits of it's proper use and takes time. It also would allow players to become more comfortable with the whole concept. Yes, some would still leave the game due to "fear or weakness" as you propose. Hockey is not for everyone. In my mind concussions, injuries, etc is a valid reason but is secondary to providing more opportunity for our players to learn how to use contact and checking to the benifit of them and their teams.

The arguements that this is about money are ridiculous. If intended to keep more players in the game it's not about the money, it's about keeping more players in the game by allowing them more time to be successful. I see no harm in that.
I agree I do not believe money for more playersis a driver in this.

I believe it is about money in the structure continuing to be gun shy of litigation. Thus a good reason to continue to implement more rules "for the good of the kids". When in reality it is the parents and their attorneys they are afraid of.

If we truly wanted players to have greater comfort with proper checking technique we would implement the it at an earlier age and have time to work with them in game situations so by the time they are young men and can physically do some harm, they have the control and technique in place.

We know coaches will not work on it when it is not part of the game. I bet you will not find a Squirt coach that has any type of checking drills at their practice. Nor will they or should they.

To get good at something you do it more and practice more not introduce later.

My opninion this is about a agenda to get it completely removed from the game, because someone(s) does not like the physical play of any type and the rest is window dressing to remove and mitigate litigation (you will never eliminate it someone will always find something to sue over).

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:07 am

Bronc wrote:
SECoach wrote:Please allow me to clear up my position. Body contact is currently allowed at all levels of youth hockey including girls. In squirts and girls hockey, well coached players learn to use contact for it's intended purpose. Giving players 2 more years to learn the proper use of angling, body positioning, and tactical body contact, in my opinion, would go to great lengths to improving the skill and playing level of American players. When "checking" is introduced they will be more seasoned on the proper use if they have been taught correctly. It is not easy to develop the habits of it's proper use and takes time. It also would allow players to become more comfortable with the whole concept. Yes, some would still leave the game due to "fear or weakness" as you propose. Hockey is not for everyone. In my mind concussions, injuries, etc is a valid reason but is secondary to providing more opportunity for our players to learn how to use contact and checking to the benifit of them and their teams.

The arguements that this is about money are ridiculous. If intended to keep more players in the game it's not about the money, it's about keeping more players in the game by allowing them more time to be successful. I see no harm in that.
I agree I do not believe money for more playersis a driver in this.

I believe it is about money in the structure continuing to be gun shy of litigation. Thus a good reason to continue to implement more rules "for the good of the kids". When in reality it is the parents and their attorneys they are afraid of.

If we truly wanted players to have greater comfort with proper checking technique we would implement the it at an earlier age and have time to work with them in game situations so by the time they are young men and can physically do some harm, they have the control and technique in place.

We know coaches will not work on it when it is not part of the game. I bet you will not find a Squirt coach that has any type of checking drills at their practice. Nor will they or should they.
To get good at something you do it more and practice more not introduce later.

My opninion this is about a agenda to get it completely removed from the game, because someone(s) does not like the physical play of any type and the rest is window dressing to remove and mitigate litigation (you will never eliminate it someone will always find something to sue over).
I will only disagree with you on the point that coaches will not work in it when it's not part of the game. When it's not part of the game coaches are, or at least should be, forced to work on the things I mentioned. Proper angling, body position, and effective use of the body to separate another player from the puck, while attempting to gain control of it. These are allowed at all levels. Spending much more time on these will develop the proper habits and focus so that when "checking" is introduced, it's used properly and in conjunction with other techniques. Also enforcement of penalties for hits with high hands and sticks would do wonders at any age "checking" is allowed. Any hands to the face or head needs to be consistantly called. The way Pee Wees and Bantams currently hit is not the way it's meant to be played. They've gotten away with it for far too long and it hurts the game.

NSHA Rules
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:44 am

Post by NSHA Rules » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:26 am

You don't just shut something down because it's not perfect!! You make it better by improving the way you do it.

Eliminate the big blowup checks and start enforcing playing the puck 1st checks 2nd and you will see a big difference in the safety of the game in my opinion.

You people who believe they should stop it completely are the same people that believe everyone should get a trophy for just showing up.....LOL!!! Jk!

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

Post by hockeyfan74 » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:42 am

SE - I apologize if I hurt your feelings. Sometimes I forget grown adults can be more sensitive than children. As I said in my last post - you seem to think people want to keep checking because of the BIG hit. That is not the point at all. To me it is about forming good habits and in my opinion the younger the player is the better of the player will be. I know that two years ago when my son was a 1st year squirt there were some kids that completely dominated and took over games. Two years later I have seen those same players - still very good players, but they can't take over a game as easily. I think checking when taught and done properly is a very important part of the game. In my opinion waiting two more years could reinforce bad habits and make them even harder to break. At squirts you can get away with heads down hockey, now you let them do it for two more years at pee-wees then try to break that at bantams - not good. Sometimes no matter how much you tell a player to keep their head up they have to learn on their own and unfortunately that means getting hit. Where we live kids can play tackle football in 3rd grade. Now you are talking 8 and 9 year olds. Both my boys had great coaches that took the first two weeks and went over how to tackle and get tackled. Once again we come back to working with the players on how to hit the right way and be prepared for the hit. What about MN going full birth years like other states and eliminate 97's hitting 99's. Just a thought.

Post Reply