checking rule

Irish · Post by **Irish** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:36 am

Now that we're into the season and most teams have one tournament under their belts.

What are your thoughts on no checking. Did USA hockey make the right decision?

The only changes I see this year in PWA opposed to last year is the teams with smaller faster kids are doing better this year. We didn't have any injuries last year, nor did I see any injuries to any players on any other team.

Not to mention majority of associations opted for smaller faster players this year with the rule changes.

Stripes2011 · Post by **Stripes2011** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:43 am

As an Official I Like the rule change. You see more skating and less of coaches and parents yelling "HIT EM" there is still body contact, just not "Hitting" Most difficult thing is to get consistancy from the officials. we officails are all human (just like Coaches and Parents) so we all have a little different tollerance level of what constitutes a Check compared to normal body contact. All in all for the "Majority" I think it has went well.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:28 am

As a parent of a 2nd year pee-wee I think pee-wee hockey has went backwards. Way to much selfish play - I have seen a very large variety of teams play and compared to last year there is a lot more skating with heads down and less moving the puck. I also have a 1st year squirt and hope they change it back before he gets to pee-wees. There is very little difference between squirt and pee-wee hockey now. From what I have watched so far it is going to slow down a players development of being an overall hockey player. They sure will learn how to keep their heads down and consistently lose the puck. All I can say is Good Luck to Bantam coaches that will have to change bad habits formed from mites to squirts to pee-wees in time to prevent some serious injuries.

As far as the officials go I understand there is a learning curve but it has been really tough of the players. One set of Ref's calls everything and they other calls nothing. There is no consistency of what is and what isn't a check. I saw all the videos and read as much as I could on how they are still allowing body contact and they game really would not change that much, so far that is great in theory but not so much in reality.

I think Checking needs to be brought back to pee-wees with continuing to educate coaches and players on the proper techniques of how to check and how to receive a check. Also make the penalties for the big blow up cheat shot more severe. I agree some coaches put too much emphasis on the big hit. Players need to understand the purpose of checking is to separate the player from the puck not his head from his shoulders.

TheSiouxSuck · Post by **TheSiouxSuck** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:12 am

As a Bantam coach I despise the changes. Checking is a major fundamental in the game of hockey and delaying the progression of it until they are 14 is going to seriously hurt their development long term, especially the kids who have not learned to play with their heads up.

This bonehead rule might have prevented a few peewee injuries but all USA hockey did is skew their data because their bantam injuries are going to skyrocket from kids of mismatched size, speed, and weight colliding while they have a limited idea on how to give and receive a hit. There is a reason why this rule existed once before in the 80's and they scrapped it after a few short years!

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:15 am

My hunch is that many PW coaches are going to completely disregard the mandate to properly teach checking...I'm seeing many kids skate with their heads down because they don't have any concern about getting hit, and as a result, I think we are going to see many of these kids get hurt when they get to Bantams....And because Bantams are bigger, stronger and faster, I think we'll see an increase of severe head injuries. I hope I'm wrong.

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:15 pm

I watched a peewee game last week and could not believe how slow it was. Less passing and kids weak on their skates were rewarded when they fell due to minor body contact.

Minnesota is different since we have two years at each level and USA hockey generally goes one (98s play with 98s, 97s play with 97s etc). Next years first year bantams will have a rude awakening, with two years from now being the big test.

The importance of summer hockey will be even greater which will allow kids to get used to checking before bantams.

Just penalize the coach when a certain theshhold of checking related penalties are reached in a given game and the boarding, headshots, charging etc will go down and therefore, the injuries.

57special · Post by **57special** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:46 pm

I've been fairly impressed at how the zebras are handling things. There has been the odd game where you can't look at anybody sideways w/o getting a trip to the box, but we've had many where significant body contact has been allowed.
There have been some games that i thought were poorly called, but that had nothing to do with checking, really.

I have seen a couple of injuries already from incidental contact with the other team and/or the boards.

I don't think body checking is all that important to good hockey, but body control/contact is. The kids/teams who can angle and rub out players into the boards and play the man on D by staying in front of him rather than going for the big hit are going to do well, but they are going to do well under any set of rules.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:48 pm

The play has been a joke and the officiating has been worse. Games have turned into toe-pull competitions in the offensive zone and kids trying to go end-2-end because they know they aren't getting knocked off the puck. Then, a game on Tuesday will be "if he aint bleeding, my arm aint going up" from the ref. Then on Thursday, if two kids come together in the corner, one is going to the box. Exactly what I thought would be the problem: each official has his/her own interpretation of what is/isn't a check.

HSRef77 · Post by **HSRef77** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:10 pm

Deep Breath wrote:The play has been a joke and the officiating has been worse. Games have turned into toe-pull competitions in the offensive zone and kids trying to go end-2-end because they know they aren't getting knocked off the puck. Then, a game on Tuesday will be "if he aint bleeding, my arm aint going up" from the ref. Then on Thursday, if two kids come together in the corner, one is going to the box. Exactly what I thought would be the problem: each official has his/her own interpretation of what is/isn't a check.

Let me start by saying that I wasn't in favor of taking checking out of Peewee hockey. But, the results (approx 50 games) that I have seen so far are hard to argue. Penalties minutes per game have decreased, intimidation has decreased and major penalties have decreased. Each of these were reasons (along with concussions) that led to the final decision.

I agree that I have seen more selfish play this year but that shouldn't be confused with "why" the rule was adopted. It's the coaches responsibility to teach kids to play with their heads up, pass the puck, etc. In the district that I live in, there is talk about lengthening the periods because games are getting done earlier. That means more ice time and more touches for everyone.

Bottom line, I can admit when I was wrong, can you?

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:25 pm

HSRef77 - What district are you in? In the games I have watched this year I have seen a lot more penalties than last year. I have seen multiple games not even get to finish out the clock - To many penalties called and next thing you know there is 3 minutes left on the game clock and the Zamboni doors are opening. Once again too much inconsistency in the way the games are being called.

Irish · Post by **Irish** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:42 pm

I hate to say it. But I agree the rule has been a complete waste of time. I wanted to give it a chance................... Next year I agree the kids that will be first year Bantams will have some adjustment. They've played some checking so it won't be a complete learning curve, but they second year Bantams will have an advantage out of the gate and tryouts.

Now that we're into the season this is what I see.....................

Teams picked smaller faster players because no checking - Is this better for overall development?
Less passing - Is this better for overall development?
More selfish play - Is this better for overall development?

My son played PWA last year. If you take the top 2-3 players from each team last year they weren't as dominant as they are this year without checking. Much more puck movement last year with checking.

Question: Is there a chance that Minnesota hockey can reverse their decision for next year?

As for injuries. Last year our team played in the EP, Edina, Roseau, and Duluth tournaments. I didn't see one player ever get hurt or a concussion because of checking.

Defensive Zone · Post by **Defensive Zone** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:52 am

Deep Breath wrote:The play has been a joke and the officiating has been worse. Games have turned into toe-pull competitions in the offensive zone and kids trying to go end-2-end because they know they aren't getting knocked off the puck. Then, a game on Tuesday will be "if he aint bleeding, my arm aint going up" from the ref. Then on Thursday, if two kids come together in the corner, one is going to the box. Exactly what I thought would be the problem: each official has his/her own interpretation of what is/isn't a check.

DP, basically I have seen the samething. At the EP Thanksgiving PW Tournament, I notice a number of players hanging onto the puck longer than they would if checking was allowed. I cannot say if that is good or bad, but I can say there was a lot of selfish play out there. Hopefully, advancing the puck by passing and/or head manning to a team mate is not being forgotten.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:03 am

Irish wrote:I hate to say it. But I agree the rule has been a complete waste of time. I wanted to give it a chance................... Next year I agree the kids that will be first year Bantams will have some adjustment. They've played some checking so it won't be a complete learning curve, but they second year Bantams will have an advantage out of the gate and tryouts.

Now that we're into the season this is what I see.....................

Teams picked smaller faster players because no checking - Is this better for overall development?
Less passing - Is this better for overall development?
More selfish play - Is this better for overall development?

My son played PWA last year. If you take the top 2-3 players from each team last year they weren't as dominant as they are this year without checking. Much more puck movement last year with checking.

Question: Is there a chance that Minnesota hockey can reverse their decision for next year?

NO. This is a USAH rule. There is no way around it other than calling them bantam teams (which is the way they are registered).

The Canadian study comparing peewee non-checking vs checking is now under scrutiny by CAHA after the same kids have been tested in bantams and found the non-checking peewee group to suffer greater concussion/serious injury as bantams. Their conclusion - further study needed.
The USAH hockey study regarding player development was not scientific but anecdotal.
The last time checking was taken out of peewees (1983-1984?) it was for a two year period. Since rule changes come up again in 2013, this rule will stay unless something major occurs.

As for injuries. Last year our team played in the EP, Edina, Roseau, and Duluth tournaments. I didn't see one player ever get hurt or a concussion because of checking.

silentbutdeadly3139 · Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:40 pm

elliott70 wrote: As for injuries. Last year our team played in the EP, Edina, Roseau, and Duluth tournaments. I didn't see one player ever get hurt or a concussion because of checking.

The true test or study will come in 2013 when this yr's peewee's will become Bantams. I hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid the same will not be said after that tournament and throughout the beginning of the first season of checking.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:28 pm

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:
elliott70 wrote: As for injuries. Last year our team played in the EP, Edina, Roseau, and Duluth tournaments. I didn't see one player ever get hurt or a concussion because of checking.
ACTUALLY IRISH SAID THIS.

skills_coach1 · Post by **skills_coach1** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:33 pm

Could it be that we are looking a little to narrowly at the issue? In other words are we looking at the situation with blinders on that prevent us from seeing the whole picture or situation? The first years are always tough of any "change"... Simple as that.

First of all checking was not "removed". Reclassified and ideally, consistently called, to allow the rub outs and appropriate checks on the stick for gaining puck possession. This will be a learning curve for refs as much as coaches too.

I see nothing but positive outcome in the long run from this. We as coaches are the ones responsible for teaching to move the puck, not the intimidation of another teams' goon. If you foster the mentality of unselfish play in practice, you will get unselfish play in a game.... PERIOD! It's not up to the refs to teach the game per se', it's their job to do the best they can to enforce the rules that are in the book.

Push skills and the love of the game man.... That is our job as coaches and parents... Checking is a necessary part of the game, the way we teach it is up to us...

hockeymannorth · Post by **hockeymannorth** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:25 pm

they call it rub outs,thats what they did to peewee hockey rubbed it out.i can hardly stand to watch it and the ref's have no idea how to call the games. i see first year peewees learning to skate with their heads down and little players thinking they'll be able bantams next year because they played A peewees this year. can't wait to see them at tryouts next year when the 6' 2" 175lb boy puts them in the wall. with no pratice on taking hits

Irish · Post by **Irish** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:31 pm

Skills_coach,
I hope you are right about the development. I know parents on most teams we've played this year. With that said.

The common question amongst the parents: What do you think about the No Checking rule so far?

I keep hearing the same thing from majority of the parents. They want to know why the coach took the smaller faster players over bigger players?

When I compare this year to last year. The 2-3 good players on each team are more dominant because they have no fear of getting checked. When this happens - less kids touch the puck - less puck movement - and lets not forget two more years less development without checking. No doubt in tournaments winning is a greater concern to the coach versus individual development. In most cases winning will come with selfish play.

Like I said in an earlier post. My son played PWA last year. The dominant kids this year would not even be close to being as dominant last year.
We went from overall team development last year, to more selfish play this year. Last year with checking the kids were forced to move the puck or get hit.
With respect. Next time you're at the rink watching a PWA game. When you see the 2-3 players dominating the game ask yourself how much different would things be if there was checking. Also look at the makeup of the team. Would some of the kids even be on the PWA this year if there was checking?
I truly see less overall development this year compared to last year. What's kind of funny is I saw my first PWA concussion. It was this year in no checking hockey. In fact, I've seen more injuries this year two months into it than all of last year.
It is what it is. We must play by the rules and trust that USA hockey knows what they're doing.

hockeymannorth · Post by **hockeymannorth** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:41 pm

want see what hockey looks like watch a bantam A game and you'll know peewees aren't playing hockey anymore

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:33 am

Watch a Bantam A game in 1-2 years from now, and you'll see the improvement. The 2-3 dominate kids can do more this year than when they were dodging heat seeking missles with terrible feet skating at them to check them.

The good players still know how to play defensively and can separate the puck from the player. It's the bad skater that hates this rule!

1998puck · Post by **1998puck** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:45 am

I agree with HOCKEYFAN74. I have seen alot of selfish play -no passing because kids know they won't get checked off the puck so the passing has decresed. I have a 2nd year pee wee defensman and he is frustrated with the way checking has been enforced by the refs. one calls a loose game and the next very tight and you lose the important fair play points. It may take time for the refs to be consistant but at what cost. So I hope we can get checking back into the pee wee level and with that give more training on proper checks to the kids and coaches.

skills_coach1 · Post by **skills_coach1** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:07 am

Irish wrote: I keep hearing the same thing from majority of the parents. They want to know why the coach took the smaller faster players over bigger players?

With respect. Next time you're at the rink watching a PWA game. When you see the 2-3 players dominating the game ask yourself how much different would things be if there was checking. Also look at the makeup of the team. Would some of the kids even be on the PWA this year if there was checking?
I truly see less overall development this year compared to last year. What's kind of funny is I saw my first PWA concussion. It was this year in no checking hockey. In fact, I've seen more injuries this year two months into it than all of last year.
It is what it is. We must play by the rules and trust that USA hockey knows what they're doing.

Good comments Irish.... I can appreciate the differences in the first and maybe even in the second year of a new rule that is as significant as this one....

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?

If we adopt a rule to allow more skill based development at a time when the kids brain does not have the functional ability to multitask as well, are we hurting the kid?

OR are we fostering development by eliminating one of the most intimidating aspects of the game (big hits for intimidation purposes)??? I would argue the latter. 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.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:08 am

I'm not a fan of delaying checking until bantams and believe problems will occur. Here's something parents of older players will relate to.

Previously, when player entered their first year of PeeWee the pre skates and tryouts were pretty interesting as players learn to, and experiment with, checking. Early in the season it was easy to see which PeeWee players wanted nothing to do with checking and avoid contact at all costs. They avoid being hit and make no attempt to forecheck in the corner to win the puck. They see someone coming and they'll just flick the puck away to no one. I've said previously there are 2-3-4 of them per team and you have no idea who they are until they've been exposed to hitting.

So, now, look ahead to bantam tryouts next year when the PeeWees, who haven't checked much, arrive on the scene. Some of the kids are truly scared. The point several have made, which is true, is PeeWee players are closer to the same size but everything changes at bantam when some of the players have grown to young men. The speed is way up as some players mature. The speed means more violent collisions. The experienced ones, that are good checkers, will blow the first years away. Injuries will increase and several players will quit. PeeWee was the perfect way to ease players into the physical aspects of the game. Believe me, bantam will not be the ideal way.

MNhockeyRECRUIT · Post by **MNhockeyRECRUIT** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:55 pm

Jacob Harrison is an outstanding checker... His form and followthrough on his checks is suppurb. Even though he is a smaller player out there he really knows how to use his body.

farmington14 · Post by **farmington14** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:59 pm

observer wrote:I'm not a fan of delaying checking until bantams and believe problems will occur. Here's something parents of older players will relate to.

Previously, when player entered their first year of PeeWee the pre skates and tryouts were pretty interesting as players learn to, and experiment with, checking. Early in the season it was easy to see which PeeWee players wanted nothing to do with checking and avoid contact at all costs. They avoid being hit and make no attempt to forecheck in the corner to win the puck. They see someone coming and they'll just flick the puck away to no one. I've said previously there are 2-3-4 of them per team and you have no idea who they are until they've been exposed to hitting.

So, now, look ahead to bantam tryouts next year when the PeeWees, who haven't checked much, arrive on the scene. Some of the kids are truly scared. The point several have made, which is true, is PeeWee players are closer to the same size but everything changes at bantam when some of the players have grown to young men. The speed is way up as some players mature. The speed means more violent collisions. The experienced ones, that are good checkers, will blow the first years away. Injuries will increase and several players will quit. PeeWee was the perfect way to ease players into the physical aspects of the game. Believe me, bantam will not be the ideal way.

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.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

checking rule

checking rule

Great Checker out of Owatana