Now soccer is a different story. No checking, but the number of teams seem to drop off quite a bit when the boys hit 12 to 13. It's not like they are playing football instead, or are they?
Peewee checking letter
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Toomuchtoosoon
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm
EVERY sport loses a lot of kids at age 13 or so. Minnesota hockey seems to be somewhat of an exception with almost as many bantam teams as squirt teams.
Now soccer is a different story. No checking, but the number of teams seem to drop off quite a bit when the boys hit 12 to 13. It's not like they are playing football instead, or are they?
Now soccer is a different story. No checking, but the number of teams seem to drop off quite a bit when the boys hit 12 to 13. It's not like they are playing football instead, or are they?
In case you missed it, the link below takes you to the recent letter from Minnesota Hockey looking for member feedback regarding the checking proposal. Maybe I'm jaded, but the tone of the letter sounds like the Minnesota "Body Contact Committee" has already made up its mind to support the checking proposal. The letter begins with a discussion of youth injuries and ends by reminding the membership that change isn't easy.
The comments below the letter are interesting. It looks like D6 unanimously voted to oppose the new rule change (March 1 entry, half way down).
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... R3__2_.pdf
The comments below the letter are interesting. It looks like D6 unanimously voted to oppose the new rule change (March 1 entry, half way down).
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... R3__2_.pdf
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
At the D10 Presidents meeting last week, an unofficial vote showed unanimous support AGAINST getting rid of checking.IcePick wrote:In case you missed it, the link below takes you to the recent letter from Minnesota Hockey looking for member feedback regarding the checking proposal. Maybe I'm jaded, but the tone of the letter sounds like the Minnesota "Body Contact Committee" has already made up its mind to support the checking proposal. The letter begins with a discussion of youth injuries and ends by reminding the membership that change isn't easy.
The comments below the letter are interesting. It looks like D6 unanimously voted to oppose the new rule change (March 1 entry, half way down).
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... R3__2_.pdf
District 10 will not support any changes to the rules.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
A simple question?
Here is my understanding of the current status taken by the district boards on peewee checking. A no means they reject banning checking at the peewee level.
D1-? (don’t play traveling hockey)
D2-no
D3-?
D4-?
D5-no
D6-no
D8-no
D9-?
D10-no
D11-no
D12-no
D15-no
D16-no
Canadian border teams (Manitoba/Ontario)-no
North Dakota-?
South Dakota-?
Iowa-?
Wisconsin-?
It is my understanding that the district directors have a strong say in matters like this. If at least eight districts are against the new rule (and four unknown), what is the debate?
Here is my understanding of the current status taken by the district boards on peewee checking. A no means they reject banning checking at the peewee level.
D1-? (don’t play traveling hockey)
D2-no
D3-?
D4-?
D5-no
D6-no
D8-no
D9-?
D10-no
D11-no
D12-no
D15-no
D16-no
Canadian border teams (Manitoba/Ontario)-no
North Dakota-?
South Dakota-?
Iowa-?
Wisconsin-?
It is my understanding that the district directors have a strong say in matters like this. If at least eight districts are against the new rule (and four unknown), what is the debate?
-
oldschoolpuckster
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:51 am
I don't think the problem is at the MN level, it is a USA hockey decision. I believe MN only has 3 votes (out of 100 nationwide) which is clearly not enough to make an impact.
If it passes, I would like to see MN Hockey seperate itself from affiliation with USA hockey. Then watch the floodgates open as other states (who feel the same way MN does) pull out as well. Then maybe 3 votes might mean something....just a thought.
If it passes, I would like to see MN Hockey seperate itself from affiliation with USA hockey. Then watch the floodgates open as other states (who feel the same way MN does) pull out as well. Then maybe 3 votes might mean something....just a thought.
-
Toomuchtoosoon
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm
check
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=632198 ... id=2378529
interesting timing of this and Minnesota is all over it
interesting timing of this and Minnesota is all over it
New England Prep School Hockey Recruiter
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
Barnaby, King, and Messier all supported the idea that it was a dumb for USA hockey to ban checking at the peewee level. One points out that leaves a kid only four years to develop an understanding of the checking game before playing major hockey and that is not enough time.
Their discussion actually focused on the cheap hit at the pro level. But then an NHLer has to face the fact that he is in competition with others (usually more marginal NHL players) for millions of dollars on a contract. Cheap hits will dominate in that environment until the monetary gain is eliminated.
Did I hear the ESPN video wrong?
A final note, Kirby Puckett lost his sight, had his career shortened, and eventually died because a Cleveland Indian pitcher struggling to keep his career going, beaned him in a late season game that meant nothing to either team. Should baseball consider banning the “small hard ball” or requiring all pitches thrown to be under 75 miles per hour? That would reduce concussions.
Their discussion actually focused on the cheap hit at the pro level. But then an NHLer has to face the fact that he is in competition with others (usually more marginal NHL players) for millions of dollars on a contract. Cheap hits will dominate in that environment until the monetary gain is eliminated.
Did I hear the ESPN video wrong?
A final note, Kirby Puckett lost his sight, had his career shortened, and eventually died because a Cleveland Indian pitcher struggling to keep his career going, beaned him in a late season game that meant nothing to either team. Should baseball consider banning the “small hard ball” or requiring all pitches thrown to be under 75 miles per hour? That would reduce concussions.
Frederick61, Kirby Puckett had a disease, glaucoma, that caused him to lose his sight. It had nothing to do with being beaned. Nor did the eye disease or the beaning have anything to do with the stroke that led to his death.
Also, the Indian pitcher, Dennis Martinez, who was "struggling to keep his career going" was the ace of the staff of a team that won the AL pennant.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it was not an accurate example.
Also, the Indian pitcher, Dennis Martinez, who was "struggling to keep his career going" was the ace of the staff of a team that won the AL pennant.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it was not an accurate example.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
Martinez was 40 years old at the time. Kirby never batted after that game, he developed glaucoma next spring and retired at the age of 35. He never blamed Martinez, but after that "concussion" incident he fought going blind until he died.
Martinez played one more year with Cleveland and two years later retired.
Martinez played one more year with Cleveland and two years later retired.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
I watched the second video and thought it was very misleading. Here are my comments about the video.
1. The USSR/USA 1980 Olympics is just an appeal to “get back to them good old days”. The USSR invented puck movement as a way to defeat the Canadian/USA physical version of hockey, but to achieve it they had to “enslave” their top talent and practice over and over again. That is why the USA win was a miracle.
2. One person states that “peewee hockey today is not what it used to be when he played peewee hockey”. From his age, I would put his peewee years around 1990 when the sport was just starting to grow at the youth level and before USA screwed it up by moving to a Tier I (AAA) and Tier II (association) hockey.
USA Hockey has to face the fact that all the terrible ingredients that drive hard hits and concussions comes about because of a desire to win and the AAA environment (organization, coaches, parents) have lots of money invested in winning. The USA organizational approach sets the stage for the violence and yet they show hits in Minnesota hockey.
3. The video shows hits in Minnesota that imply peewee hockey in this state has the problem and they imply Anthony Tabery is an example of why Minnesota peewee hockey needs to adopt the new rule. The fact is that two years ago Anthony Tabery was skating as a Wayzata Bantam A player.
4. If USA Hockey wants to take the bad hits out of the sport at the peewee level, they need to reorganize and eliminate the national tourneys as a means of national recognition especially at the Tier I level. It is similar to what Minnesota Hockey is trying to do with the “unfairplay” point system, de-incentivize the organization, parents and coaches peewee teams.
But this would be done at the national level. USA Hockey has to face it, Minnesota is not the only state that does not send peewee teams to nationals and the kids never miss it.
5. Finally, if USA hockey adopts the “no check at peewee rule”, how will that impact USA insurance that is required by all who touch the ice for sanctioned hockey? Though not discussed in the video, shouldn’t it be discussed and shouldn’t Minnesota Hockey be discussing what it would mean to our kids next year.
1. The USSR/USA 1980 Olympics is just an appeal to “get back to them good old days”. The USSR invented puck movement as a way to defeat the Canadian/USA physical version of hockey, but to achieve it they had to “enslave” their top talent and practice over and over again. That is why the USA win was a miracle.
2. One person states that “peewee hockey today is not what it used to be when he played peewee hockey”. From his age, I would put his peewee years around 1990 when the sport was just starting to grow at the youth level and before USA screwed it up by moving to a Tier I (AAA) and Tier II (association) hockey.
USA Hockey has to face the fact that all the terrible ingredients that drive hard hits and concussions comes about because of a desire to win and the AAA environment (organization, coaches, parents) have lots of money invested in winning. The USA organizational approach sets the stage for the violence and yet they show hits in Minnesota hockey.
3. The video shows hits in Minnesota that imply peewee hockey in this state has the problem and they imply Anthony Tabery is an example of why Minnesota peewee hockey needs to adopt the new rule. The fact is that two years ago Anthony Tabery was skating as a Wayzata Bantam A player.
4. If USA Hockey wants to take the bad hits out of the sport at the peewee level, they need to reorganize and eliminate the national tourneys as a means of national recognition especially at the Tier I level. It is similar to what Minnesota Hockey is trying to do with the “unfairplay” point system, de-incentivize the organization, parents and coaches peewee teams.
But this would be done at the national level. USA Hockey has to face it, Minnesota is not the only state that does not send peewee teams to nationals and the kids never miss it.
5. Finally, if USA hockey adopts the “no check at peewee rule”, how will that impact USA insurance that is required by all who touch the ice for sanctioned hockey? Though not discussed in the video, shouldn’t it be discussed and shouldn’t Minnesota Hockey be discussing what it would mean to our kids next year.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
Again, Martinez was not "struggling to keep his career going." He was 12-5 with a 3.05 ERA in 1995, which includes being the winning pitcher in the AL pennant clinching win. I don't see how you can classify that as a struggle.frederick61 wrote:Martinez was 40 years old at the time. Kirby never batted after that game, he developed glaucoma next spring and retired at the age of 35. He never blamed Martinez, but after that "concussion" incident he fought going blind until he died.
Martinez played one more year with Cleveland and two years later retired.
And... Martinez had nothing, NOTHING to do with Kirby's blindness.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
The following is a list of benefits that USA touts for the people/associations/districts registered with USA Hockey.
In fiscal year 2010, USA Hockey had $18,877,000 dollars in revenue from the registrations. My guestimate is that about $3.5 million come from Minnesota registrations. The USA benefits listed below have been edited by me to focus on those that may offer benefit to Minnesota Hockey.
The general question is since our youth programs are self-sufficient with most of the play within the state boundaries, what keeps Minnesota Hockey part of USA Hockey?
The possible selling points that I see are access to the national programs (U18, U17, etc) for the better players, access to registration process, association access to software, possible certification of refs and coaches, and insurance. But I believe that most of those can be easily re-created at the Minnesota Hockey level for less money (with the exception of access to the national programs) for less than $3.5 million a year.
Perhaps Minnesota Hockey is better off being independent of USA Hockey.
USA Hockey membership benefits include:
• Opportunity to be selected for regional and national Player Development Camps and Festivals, various Select Teams and the USA Hockey National Team Development Program
• An extensive Junior Program for high-level players to develop their skills in preparation for collegiate and professional careers
• Access to participation in Adult Classic Tournaments held in various locations around the Country
• A Coaching Education Program to provide instructional training, clinics and certification for over 60,000 coaches
• USA Hockey/Cyber Sport registration software provided to all programs free of charge to facilitate registration and provide a program management tool for local use throughout the year. This software creates multiple reports, mailing and scoresheet labels and many other features.
• Online registration provided to all officials and to members of all participating ice Programs
• Insurance coverages include: excess accident (up to $25,000), catastrophic accident (from $25,001 to $2,000,000), general liability ($1,000,000 per occurrence, no aggregate), directors and officer’s insurance for all boards from local programs through District/Affiliate level ($1,000,000 per occurrence, no aggregate), crime insurance for all Programs
• All member programs can build a free website with real-time scoring and statistics on the usahockey.com platform
• The USA Hockey Foundation provides grants to Districts/Affiliates and other member programs to allow them to develop programs specific to their area to increase participation and enhance skill development
In fiscal year 2010, USA Hockey had $18,877,000 dollars in revenue from the registrations. My guestimate is that about $3.5 million come from Minnesota registrations. The USA benefits listed below have been edited by me to focus on those that may offer benefit to Minnesota Hockey.
The general question is since our youth programs are self-sufficient with most of the play within the state boundaries, what keeps Minnesota Hockey part of USA Hockey?
The possible selling points that I see are access to the national programs (U18, U17, etc) for the better players, access to registration process, association access to software, possible certification of refs and coaches, and insurance. But I believe that most of those can be easily re-created at the Minnesota Hockey level for less money (with the exception of access to the national programs) for less than $3.5 million a year.
Perhaps Minnesota Hockey is better off being independent of USA Hockey.
USA Hockey membership benefits include:
• Opportunity to be selected for regional and national Player Development Camps and Festivals, various Select Teams and the USA Hockey National Team Development Program
• An extensive Junior Program for high-level players to develop their skills in preparation for collegiate and professional careers
• Access to participation in Adult Classic Tournaments held in various locations around the Country
• A Coaching Education Program to provide instructional training, clinics and certification for over 60,000 coaches
• USA Hockey/Cyber Sport registration software provided to all programs free of charge to facilitate registration and provide a program management tool for local use throughout the year. This software creates multiple reports, mailing and scoresheet labels and many other features.
• Online registration provided to all officials and to members of all participating ice Programs
• Insurance coverages include: excess accident (up to $25,000), catastrophic accident (from $25,001 to $2,000,000), general liability ($1,000,000 per occurrence, no aggregate), directors and officer’s insurance for all boards from local programs through District/Affiliate level ($1,000,000 per occurrence, no aggregate), crime insurance for all Programs
• All member programs can build a free website with real-time scoring and statistics on the usahockey.com platform
• The USA Hockey Foundation provides grants to Districts/Affiliates and other member programs to allow them to develop programs specific to their area to increase participation and enhance skill development
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
-
thespellchecker
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:42 pm
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
When I posted the question asking “what benefits are gained by Minnesota Hockey being part of USA Hockey”, I did that purposefully.
USA Hockey has an agenda and their current Tier I and Tier II approach to youth hockey fits that agenda. Unfortunately, I believe it does not fit the structure of Minnesota Youth Hockey or Minnesota Hockey’s agenda and fear in the long run that adherence to USA Hockey will ruin Minnesota Hockey.
For the past dozen years, an agreement has been in-place between Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey that has allowed the sport at the youth level to develop in Minnesota along Minnesota guidelines and yet operate under USA Hockey. The basic difference in the two approaches has resulted in Minnesota Hockey being embraced by the whole state, from large population areas to small, more remotely located, rural Minnesota towns.
USA Hockey has never achieved youth hockey on that scale in other states. Now the two organizations are faced with surviving a very trouble economy over the next few years, driven in part by gas that could exceed $5 a gallon by the start of the 2011 season (high gas prices reflect lower participation in areas where associations have to drive distances to play games).
The principal discussion today between the two organizations about “checking or no checking at the peewee level” is foolish. All Minnesota Hockey needs to do is clearly decide what the community, parents, coaches and kids in Minnesota want and do it, but do not do it because of what is important to Detroit Michigan.
They need to listen to where the Minnesota people are at when it comes to the peewee checking issue and figure out how to support them. But Minnesota Hockey can’t stop there in dealing with USA Hockey.
Minnesota Hockey needs to look again at their Districts and get a better handle on what the turn out will be at the youth level and then determine what they need to do to maintain competition at each level. Simply put, Minnesota Hockey through its association’s control around 1,000,000 hours of prime indoor ice time in this state during the winter hockey season, courtesy of each association’s local communities. Those communities will be facing tough spending decisions in the coming few years.
Failure by Minnesota Hockey to work towards solving problems to keep those number of hours available for youth hockey will have a further drag on participation numbers and eventually competition.
USA Hockey and its organizational approach controls no hours at youth level. And as the benefits point out, USA Hockey does nothing to help Minnesota maintain interest in hockey in this state because USA Hockey has no economic investment in Minnesota Hockey. They operate on another plane.
Minnesota Hockey needs to strengthen outlying areas in the coming years and they may have willing participants that would improve overall hockey in Minnesota.
One possible solution is that Minnesota Hockey could work proactively to take advantage of interest in the sport in North Dakota (Grand Forks and Fargo), South Dakota (Sioux Falls), Northern Iowa, Wisconsin (La Crosse, Hudson, and Superior) and Canada (Winnipeg and Fort Francis). North Dakota is becoming a rich state and Grand Forks and Fargo are likely to grow over the next few years. District 4 in the southwest part of the state could benefit from playing with Sioux Falls and Watertown. Winona and La Crescent would benefit from a stronger tie with La Crosse. International Falls and D16 could benefit from competition with teams across the Canadian border.
But if Minnesota Hockey does nothing this year, each of these states and Manitoba/Ontario, will do their own thing. Most will be driven by what USA Hockey does.
USA Hockey has an agenda and their current Tier I and Tier II approach to youth hockey fits that agenda. Unfortunately, I believe it does not fit the structure of Minnesota Youth Hockey or Minnesota Hockey’s agenda and fear in the long run that adherence to USA Hockey will ruin Minnesota Hockey.
For the past dozen years, an agreement has been in-place between Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey that has allowed the sport at the youth level to develop in Minnesota along Minnesota guidelines and yet operate under USA Hockey. The basic difference in the two approaches has resulted in Minnesota Hockey being embraced by the whole state, from large population areas to small, more remotely located, rural Minnesota towns.
USA Hockey has never achieved youth hockey on that scale in other states. Now the two organizations are faced with surviving a very trouble economy over the next few years, driven in part by gas that could exceed $5 a gallon by the start of the 2011 season (high gas prices reflect lower participation in areas where associations have to drive distances to play games).
The principal discussion today between the two organizations about “checking or no checking at the peewee level” is foolish. All Minnesota Hockey needs to do is clearly decide what the community, parents, coaches and kids in Minnesota want and do it, but do not do it because of what is important to Detroit Michigan.
They need to listen to where the Minnesota people are at when it comes to the peewee checking issue and figure out how to support them. But Minnesota Hockey can’t stop there in dealing with USA Hockey.
Minnesota Hockey needs to look again at their Districts and get a better handle on what the turn out will be at the youth level and then determine what they need to do to maintain competition at each level. Simply put, Minnesota Hockey through its association’s control around 1,000,000 hours of prime indoor ice time in this state during the winter hockey season, courtesy of each association’s local communities. Those communities will be facing tough spending decisions in the coming few years.
Failure by Minnesota Hockey to work towards solving problems to keep those number of hours available for youth hockey will have a further drag on participation numbers and eventually competition.
USA Hockey and its organizational approach controls no hours at youth level. And as the benefits point out, USA Hockey does nothing to help Minnesota maintain interest in hockey in this state because USA Hockey has no economic investment in Minnesota Hockey. They operate on another plane.
Minnesota Hockey needs to strengthen outlying areas in the coming years and they may have willing participants that would improve overall hockey in Minnesota.
One possible solution is that Minnesota Hockey could work proactively to take advantage of interest in the sport in North Dakota (Grand Forks and Fargo), South Dakota (Sioux Falls), Northern Iowa, Wisconsin (La Crosse, Hudson, and Superior) and Canada (Winnipeg and Fort Francis). North Dakota is becoming a rich state and Grand Forks and Fargo are likely to grow over the next few years. District 4 in the southwest part of the state could benefit from playing with Sioux Falls and Watertown. Winona and La Crescent would benefit from a stronger tie with La Crosse. International Falls and D16 could benefit from competition with teams across the Canadian border.
But if Minnesota Hockey does nothing this year, each of these states and Manitoba/Ontario, will do their own thing. Most will be driven by what USA Hockey does.
-
council member retired
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:12 pm
- Location: Nordeast Mpls
On a side note: how come in the USA Hockey magazine we get there is seldom a mention of a Minnesota association or volunteer compared to our other union states? MN Hockey you don't need to follow USA Hockey on every rule. Don't play teams outside Minnesota. Now your playing teams witht the same set of rules. Check on
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
I have a question for Fred. My observation indicate the big hitting, "dirty play" that seems to be the focus for rule changes to reduce injuries is most often committed by lower skilled players/teams that seem to have coaches that realize they can't "play hockey" at that level, so they coach to slow the game down with big/dirty hits.
The higher skill level players/teams move the puck and hitting seems less important to them.
So Fred, what is your answer to keep coaches from employing dirty hockey tactics to make up for having less skill? AA and A levels? Fair Play Point? Coaching Education Programs?
My thought is that top teams like say Edina have fewer "big dirty hits" than a team like say Albert Lea. And if those two teams ever played a game, Only one way Albert Lea would stand a chance to "win". And that's to slow them down with "big dirty hits".
The higher skill level players/teams move the puck and hitting seems less important to them.
So Fred, what is your answer to keep coaches from employing dirty hockey tactics to make up for having less skill? AA and A levels? Fair Play Point? Coaching Education Programs?
My thought is that top teams like say Edina have fewer "big dirty hits" than a team like say Albert Lea. And if those two teams ever played a game, Only one way Albert Lea would stand a chance to "win". And that's to slow them down with "big dirty hits".
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
-
luckyEPDad
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm
I think the main reason for that is because girls are more willing to take risks and handle the puck more than boys. Top girl players race to every puck with little concern for their safety. They hold the puck longer and try to create plays. Skill is still so uneven in girls hockey that this individual play is often rewarded with goals. Their thinking is tactical rather than strategic. When you get a couple of these hot-dogs out on the ice at the same time it is a recipe for dangerous play.frederick61 wrote:Before I would answer the question, I would ask why girl’s hockey is the sport that has the most players suffering concussions of any sport played. As we all know, girl’s hockey bans physical checking at all levels.
I would be wholeheartedly against the rule change if it ONLY delayed the start of checking until bantam level. As proponents state it would result in boys holding the puck longer and being more creative in making plays. It would also lead to the same dangerous play that results in so many concussions in the girl's game. Fortunately the rule change is not just a delay to checking. It is a more thoughtful progression to the introduction of body contact that starts earlier and ends a little later than the current system. I don't know if it will be safer or result in better hockey players, but it can't be much worse than the current system.
Hockey is not hockey without body contact, but too often checking is used as a crutch by weaker, slower players and teams. At lower levels it is more often used for retribution than for tactical advantage. My daughter has gone full fledged hockey nut this season and I've watched a lot more hockey than usual as a result. My observation is there is very little checking in the NHL (except in blowouts), slightly more in the Division 1, quite a bit more in HS, a ridiculous amount in bantam, and and stupid amount in PW. It appears to be taking 4-8 years to unlearn bad checking habits picked up in PW.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
I agree with you when you say that "girls are more willing to take and handle the puck more then the boys". That is why I believe a girl should play some level of hockey (spring/summer/fall if nothing else) with the boys at the peewee age. They then develop the same understanding of how the game is played.
That is why I believe checking at the peewee level makes sense. It is the right time and place to learn the game and develop respect for the game without getting seriously hurt.
If you extend what is happening to the girls to what would happen to the boys at the bantam level if peewee checking was banned, the bantam level will see a serious increase in concussion injuries.
That is why I believe checking at the peewee level makes sense. It is the right time and place to learn the game and develop respect for the game without getting seriously hurt.
If you extend what is happening to the girls to what would happen to the boys at the bantam level if peewee checking was banned, the bantam level will see a serious increase in concussion injuries.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
Discussion here is good but the first important discussion will be this weekend at the state meeting and if you have not sent in your letters and e-mails then show up and let those who are in favor or standing on the sidelines hear you loud and clear. This is a very important issue for youth hockey and every one should attend as these are open meetings. The agenda is posted on the Mn Hockey web site. See you all there Friday night.