checking rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

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

Post by silentbutdeadly3139 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:40 pm

skills_coach1 wrote: ... Mites through Peewees are or will be (supposed to be) taught proper angling, checks with the intent to get the puck and appropriate use of "playing the body" by getting in their lane.

Focusing on skill based development, better skating, stickhandling, passing and team play is a "win win" in the long run... I will admit, I absolutely hate selfish play at all levels. We are still in the adjustment period and probably will be for the next two years. There is no doubt the kids that are in this time frame will probably have some quick learning to do when they hit bantams... But the bigger picture has to be better skilled, faster players...big and small, not just the big guys that can throw the body around. JMHO.
It isn't happening and doubt coaches will find time to with all the other things they need to teach. Skating with your head up is a skill and unfortunately one way to teach and reinforce it is through contact. I would rather have this done at peewee than bantams ... actually would rather they start at squirts. As for the comment on the "next 2 year adjustment period", thats a pretty blase way of looking at it.
farmington14 wrote: I could not have said it better, I completely agree with everything you have said! Does anybody seriously believe that peewee coaches will prep their players for bantams, wishfull thinking but no dice. I heard the same thing when my kid was a squirt, the last 1/3 of the practices, they were suppose to teach them how to check...it never happened.
EXACTLY and it isn't happening now.

West Hockey
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:58 pm
Location: Western Metro

Post by West Hockey » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:00 pm

Is there a reason why USA hockey didn't LOWER the checking age to Squirts? It seems more reasonable to lower the checking age to a point where most of the boys are close to the same body size, weigh substantially less, are much shorter, and more are playing the game.

When these first year Pee Wees become first year Bantams, they are going to face checking for the first time against 9th graders who have 3 years of body contact under their belts, and some with full beards. If they learn to check when they are in 5th grade, they will know how to avoid and take checks. They will learn to pass and move the puck when they are 9, not 14. They will learn a finesse game and a heads up game earlier in their development.

As a first year Pee Wee parent, I feel like I am watching Squirt games where some of the players have learned how to draw penalties with Oscar winning performances, feigning to be a victim of a check.

I just don't see an upside to delaying checking--I'd rather teach them earlier. Othwerwise, Pee Wees has just become 3rd and 4th year Squirts.

Irish
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Irish » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:13 pm

Kids either want to hit or don't want to hit. Period. Another two years of non-checking will not change that. Big or small either players have it or they don't.
We have a player on our team that has to be one of the biggest PW's in all of Minnesota. Yet wants nothing to do with checking last year in PW's, or this past summer. There is no way next year he will be any different.

Sorry! Broken record.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:50 pm

Irish wrote:Kids either want to hit or don't want to hit. Period. Another two years of non-checking will not change that. Big or small either players have it or they don't.
We have a player on our team that has to be one of the biggest PW's in all of Minnesota. Yet wants nothing to do with checking last year in PW's, or this past summer. There is no way next year he will be any different.

Sorry! Broken record.
I do not like what is happening because of this rule. That said I completely disagree with you that things do not or cannot change with kids. I was a early bloomer size wise and was roughly 5' 10" and 150 lbs when I was 12. I really did not like contact at age 12 and didn't like hitting or checking. While my growth spurt hit early the other parts of puberty and maturation went on schedule like most other kids and by the time I was a freshman in High School I was the most aggressive and hard hitting kid out there and from my observation I am not the exception to the rule I am the rule. Yes some kids don;t like it and never will, some kids like it right away and always will but I'd say the majority of kids don't like it much while younger but grow to, if not like it, atleast be able to do it and handle it correctly. So I completely disagree with you when you say a kid will never be any different, the change might take more than one year but most kids do change over time in this regard.

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

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:01 pm

I agree DON'T write off 12 yr olds, come on. My 12th grader had a kid that as an a bantam hated contact, ended up being all conference [SEC] linebacker. Hits like a truck on the ice as well. You are wrong Irish.

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

Post by gorilla1 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:45 am

I respectfully disagree that kids who do not like the physical part of the play become physical as they get older. It's certainly not impossible or unheard of for that to change and kids do change, but if they don't like it they generally don't like it all the way through. Now it also doesn't prevent them from playing, it's just that their game would be different if it was not such a concern for them.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:02 am

gorilla1 wrote:I respectfully disagree that kids who do not like the physical part of the play become physical as they get older. It's certainly not impossible or unheard of for that to change and kids do change, but if they don't like it they generally don't like it all the way through. Now it also doesn't prevent them from playing, it's just that their game would be different if it was not such a concern for them.
Well every kids game is going to be different to certain degrees. And some kids are going to be hitters, some are going to be finesse players and some will be somewhere in between. But I've actually never met a kid who stayed with the sport that didn't embrace the hitting'checking aspect more as a 16 year old than as a 12 year old. It's called being more physically and mentally mature. And like I said before, I've seen alot more kids who didn't like it at 12 that embrace it at 16 than I've seen just stay the course. Like I said, I think that is more of the rule than the exception in my experience.

BadgerBob82
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am

Post by BadgerBob82 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:24 pm

I think alot of the comments are supporting the reasoning behind the removal of "checking" at Pee-Wees. To summarize comments from several that don't like the new rule, many are saying some 12 year olds don't like the hitting and it shows this year with more "puck hogging" and less throwing away the puck out of fear of being run through the wall. Some are saying "some" kids that were afraid or didn't like hitting in PW's do well in HS and some even thrive with the hitting as they grow.

While I understand some refs are idiots and don't know what is/is not a penalty regardless of the level. Good refs fully understand the new checking rule and call it perfectly. (In other words, they use their eyes, not their ears)

I just fail to see the logic that removing the pointless checking, most commonly performed by a big kid with bad feet, has ruined the careers of all PW's. Most kids can see the big blow up hit coming a mile away. (And have plenty of time to throw the hand gernade before it blows up!)

Good players still can use their body to separate the puck from a player. It just takes better feet, angles, timing, and skill than just setting a collision course, skating hard and hoping you don't miss the puck carrier.

hockeyfan74
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 1:02 pm

Post by hockeyfan74 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:41 pm

BadgerBob - You keep referring to the only thing removed from Peewee hockey was the big blow up hit. I am guessing you have watched very little Peewee hockey this year. My son plays defense and he really has been left with no option but to allow the opposing player to enter the zone and keep him wide. He has been penalized for turning and angling the opposing forward into the boards - he even goes through the hands but as soon as the opposing forward hits the boards and falls to the sin bin you go. At the peewee level he shouldn't have to worry whether he got a little to much of the body or not. He has been penalized for standing opposing forwards up at the blue line - great defensive play has nothing to do with a big blow up hit. There are plenty of great checking plays that don't involve a Big Blow up hit. I agree there really is no reason to try and decapitate another player, but learning to play the body is a must. Once again based on what I watched last year and so far this year removing checking from the pee-wee level was a mistake. Also the reasoning was less injuries, but as stated by elliott the same group that provided the study on concussions is now saying by removing checking from pee-wees there was an increase in injuries at bantams. How well did it work for the other areas that preceded USA Hockey - doesn't look like it worked out in their favor.

Deep Breath

Post by Deep Breath » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:46 pm

There is no reason they had to get rid of "pointless checking". If a player last year checked another player who didn't have the puck, that is an obvious interference penalty. If the other player did have the puck, the checking player made a good play to knock the puck free. There is no "pointless checking". it is either a good check, or it is an interference penalty. Checking is a part of the game; teach the kids at younger age to do it properly, not at a later age, cuz trust me: there isn't any checking instruction being taught at the peewee level this season, regardless of what USA Hockey was hoping for. It was a bad decision when they tried to get rid of checking at this level in the 80s and it was a bad decision to do it again this year.

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:30 pm

Deep Breath wrote:There is no reason they had to get rid of "pointless checking". If a player last year checked another player who didn't have the puck, that is an obvious interference penalty. If the other player did have the puck, the checking player made a good play to knock the puck free. There is no "pointless checking". it is either a good check, or it is an interference penalty. Checking is a part of the game; teach the kids at younger age to do it properly, not at a later age, cuz trust me: there isn't any checking instruction being taught at the peewee level this season, regardless of what USA Hockey was hoping for. It was a bad decision when they tried to get rid of checking at this level in the 80s and it was a bad decision to do it again this year.
The mandate this year is that checking be taught at the pw level. It sounds like that isn't happening across the board. So if the mandate is switched to teach at younger levels, what needs to change to make sure it is actually taught?
It seems to me that the problem (or future problem at bantams) is not so much USAh's fault as it is the local coaches'.

Toomuchtoosoon
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Post by Toomuchtoosoon » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:42 pm

It seems to me that the problem (or future problem at bantams) is not so much USAh's fault as it is the local coaches'.
Disagree. It is human nature to deal with todays issues. If I am coaching peewees, and my kids struggle with catching passes or breaking out, then I will work on that in practice, along with all the other skill development the kids need. Why spend ten minutes on body checking when the kids won't need it for a year? Also, you cannot rely on the refs to call it right anyway, so it ends up being a waste of time. Add in the realization that USA hockey is not well regarded in this state, and you have a formula for the local volunteers to ignore the mandate. USA hockey has missed the boat on several issues and this is one of them. I would let my kid learn to check in an outside clinic and summer hockey.

Irish
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Irish » Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:22 am

old goalie85 wrote:I agree DON'T write off 12 yr olds, come on. My 12th grader had a kid that as an a bantam hated contact, ended up being all conference [SEC] linebacker. Hits like a truck on the ice as well. You are wrong Irish.
I agree with everyone. When the kids get to high school their bodies change. I feel the two years between peewees and bantams are not that dramatic.
Anyone who's son was a first year PW last year and this year will know exactly what I'm saying. The PW's this year are taking one step back when it comes to overall development in hockey.

Referees should be better educated to enforce the rules and protect the players.
Coaches should be liable(penalized) for kids behaviors or intent to injury
Players should be more heavily penalized for dangerous plays.
Maybe no open ice hits at peewee and full check at bantam?

Time will tell if this was a good decision or not.

skills_coach1
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:47 am

Post by skills_coach1 » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:07 am

Irish wrote: Coaches should be liable(penalized) for kids behaviors or intent to injury
Players should be more heavily penalized for dangerous plays.
Maybe no open ice hits at peewee and full check at bantam?

Time will tell if this was a good decision or not.
I like the thoughts about accountability to coaches, penalized players-dangerous plays..
Maybe no open ice hits at peewee and full check at bantam?
This is what the rule is now!!! OR at least that how the rule is written.

Good discussion either way Irish, appreciate your (and everyone elses) insight... It will be an interesting time of change for sure...

Reference: See page 3 http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/ ... 281%29.pdf

BBgunner
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:06 am

Post by BBgunner » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Let me first say I am a Bantam Coach and I am opposed to the rule change and have been since the start. I have watched some pee wee hockey this year probably not enough to put a full vote in on this subject however I firmly believe that this rule should have moved down not up. If you start teaching PROPER contact in Squirts I think the amount of injury goes way down. "Intimidating hits" as USAH calls them are now being called more closely at Bantam age and have changed the ways some of the kids I coach play and for the better. As a whole I think USAH got it half right I think the officials in the Pee Wee games I have been to are calling them correct and it has carried over to a safer Bantam game with many more head contact and boarding calls. I have even noticed increased head and Boarding calls in High School games as well. I will however always believe that they should have lowered the age for contact.

Irish
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Irish » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:47 pm

BBgunner wrote:Let me first say I am a Bantam Coach and I am opposed to the rule change and have been since the start. I have watched some pee wee hockey this year probably not enough to put a full vote in on this subject however I firmly believe that this rule should have moved down not up. If you start teaching PROPER contact in Squirts I think the amount of injury goes way down. "Intimidating hits" as USAH calls them are now being called more closely at Bantam age and have changed the ways some of the kids I coach play and for the better. As a whole I think USAH got it half right I think the officials in the Pee Wee games I have been to are calling them correct and it has carried over to a safer Bantam game with many more head contact and boarding calls. I have even noticed increased head and Boarding calls in High School games as well. I will however always believe that they should have lowered the age for contact.
Checking in Peewee's used to be a great stepping stone to Bantams. With the new rule it's closer to Squirt hockey than Bantam hockey.
The farther along our season goes the more and more I dislike this rule. It's pretty bad when my son (who's not aggressive) cannot wait for summer hockey. He spent two years trying to learn the game of checking. Right when he's comfortable with it the rule change.
I'm not kidding when I say we've already had more injuries this year on our team playing non-checking hockey versus all of last year. One player has already has two concussions this season. Of course mom rushed him back to get on the ice both times.
I had one coach tell me the kids should learn contact at the squirt age. Like many people have already stated that if the kids learned the right way at a younger age there wouldn't be as many injuries. Just like football, when kids start hitting in hockey it discourages kids from playing hockey and they quit at a younger age. I hate to say it, but I think USA hockey is putting more emphasis on their registration numbers, versus trying to teach contact the right way.

It is what it is....... So time will tell if it was a good decision. Good luck to all. Very frsutrating watching squirt hockey at a PW age. ](*,)

@hockeytweet
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:43 pm

Post by @hockeytweet » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:22 am

If you want to know how the checking debate is going at the PWA level, "check" out the Edina Tourney. Kids skating head down, with NO fear of getting hit, on virtually every shift.
If development for USA Hockey equals games with NO flow, and individuals showcasing toe-drags, then they have it.
My concern is little Johnny puck hog is learning bad habits that will get him killed at the Bantam level.
4 morning games in, and there are long stretches in each that make it almost unwatchable.
Please--MN Hockey--change it back!

hunting247
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:02 am

Post by hunting247 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:48 am

@hockeytweet wrote:If you want to know how the checking debate is going at the PWA level, "check" out the Edina Tourney. Kids skating head down, with NO fear of getting hit, on virtually every shift.
If development for USA Hockey equals games with NO flow, and individuals showcasing toe-drags, then they have it.
My concern is little Johnny puck hog is learning bad habits that will get him killed at the Bantam level.
4 morning games in, and there are long stretches in each that make it almost unwatchable.
Please--MN Hockey--change it back!
sounds like you just got done playing Edina :lol:

Mnhockeys
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:03 pm

Post by Mnhockeys » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:26 pm

Hello, where is the doctor from Mayo Clinic???

C-dad
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:47 pm

Post by C-dad » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:15 pm

Mnhockeys wrote:Hello, where is the doctor from Mayo Clinic???
In Rochester?

inthenet
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by inthenet » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:05 pm

It is a fricking joke...!!!!!!

TheSiouxSuck
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:20 pm

Post by TheSiouxSuck » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:03 am

However, long term.... Let's look at some of the more recent players All under 5'10" in the NHL that have some success now, Gerbe? Derek Roy? Steve Sullivan? Marc Savard? Gionta? St. Loius? Saku Koivu?, Versteeg? Similarly in the College ranks there are players smaller and more skilled. Is this a wave of the future? OR is it something that is real and finally being seen in youth hockey?


Do you really think any of those undersized NHL'ers would be where they are today if they hadnt learned to play the game with their head up and take a hit at a young age?

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:19 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:If you want to know how the checking debate is going at the PWA level, "check" out the Edina Tourney. Kids skating head down, with NO fear of getting hit, on virtually every shift.
If development for USA Hockey equals games with NO flow, and individuals showcasing toe-drags, then they have it.
My concern is little Johnny puck hog is learning bad habits that will get him killed at the Bantam level.
4 morning games in, and there are long stretches in each that make it almost unwatchable.
Please--MN Hockey--change it back!
NOt a MN HOCKEY rule.

Irish
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Irish » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:23 pm

It is what it is....... So time will tell if it was a good decision. Good luck to all. Very frustrating watching peewee's playing squirt hockey when they're 12-13 years old. :roll:

Jackpinesavage
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:12 pm

You guys are completely missing the point

Post by Jackpinesavage » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:31 pm

I cant believe what I am reading. All the kids are toe-dragging puck hogs and the Pee-Wee level is allowing it. Waa- Waa. How about some coaching and discipline to play the game the right way. USA hockey says Pee-Wee is still about development so which part of skating with your head up and passing the puck is not development. Are you saying coaches cant teach that or are you saying the kids are to dumb or selfish babys to learn the game. Pee-Wees are old enough to play the game right and pass the puck and skate with their head up. If they dont then they need to sit - miss a shift or a period and the puck will start moving.

Also have a little paitience- Things aren't perfect and they weren't perfect before but give it time. So far I see a lot of bitching about a season not even half done with half of the players that had checking last year. Get over the fact your kid that cant skate fast and is now on a B team instead of an A team and calm down

Post Reply