D6 Checking from behind rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

buttend
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:53 pm

D6 Checking from behind rule

Post by buttend » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:16 pm

At the rink tonight, I was talking with a couple of contacts in D6 that are shaking their heads , frustrated with D6's new Checking from behind rule. They are saying its to a point where at the Bantam level, coaches are making a conscience decision to schedule less games/scrimmages to try to avoid the potential suspensions.

Biggest concern they are saying? Because there is no checking through PeeWee's, first year Bantams really do not know how to check or have the experience yet and do nor know how to avoid the check when the other player turns to protect himself or the puck exposing his back to the oncoming player. happened all summer with first year Bantams. Kids will be punished multiple times because they lack the experience of checking. This rule does not teach or fix the issue. It will push kids out of the game at an age where you need to keep the kids playing.

D6 refs try to control the games enough as it is, Checking from behind can be an interpretation call just as the boarding call now is.

Thoughts?

D6 Rule

Checking From Behind


5.3 Per MN Hockey when a checking from behind penalty has been assessed to a player, he/her will receive either a 5 minute major plus a 10 minute misconduct or a 5 minute major plus a game misconduct.

If the same player received a second penalty in the same season for this infraction in either case the player will received an addition game suspension and the association president will be notified of the infraction.

For the third infraction during the same year the player will be suspended for an additional three games and must appear before the disciplinary committee.

A fourth infraction during the same year will result in an immediate suspension for the season.

MNM JMH
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:17 pm

Post by MNM JMH » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:46 pm

As if this wasn't going to be a problem? To take a 1st yr Bantam that my waigh 130lb now be hit by a 2yr bantam that may waigh 190lb. Well what you will get is the smaller kids turning to avoid the hit. now it becomes a hit from behind or boarding. MN should reconsider the checking rule for peewees.

Sweet Dreams
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Post by Sweet Dreams » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:36 am

This really is an unfortunate situation and it is really sad to see a downfall of a great game. Plain and simple, Hockey is a Physical sport. It can be very physical but not in a Goon way. I think if we were to teach and educate on how to play physical the right way, we may not have to keep making up rules. While we are making up rules, why not make up a rule and give a 5 minute penalty to anyone who turns their back to avoid a check. Lets call it, "Self Endangerment". Lets take away the "Bail out", and if we are going to punish one for hitting, we also punish the other for trying to sucker the other into a major. Now don't get me wrong, we need to make sure there is not any big blow ups from behind especially when the other doesn't see it coming. I was talking with a D6 ref the other night and he made mention to this new rule and said how he is not looking forward to the yelling and screaming coming from coaches and fans.

It is interesting what Bernie is doing with the Super Squirt League at Minnesota Made. They are teaching the kids how to check, how to receive a check and the consequences of being a goon. I know I opened the door to the Bernie Bashing, but I have heard many great things already from parents and players alike. My child is not in the Super Squirt League but I have seen the Pee Wee Choice League and how they have actually taught the kids the right way to seperate the puck from the man. The other day I was talking with a group of parents who have kids in this and they were talking how well the kids have done with it and that most of the kids are being physical. Funny how you can teach kids of relatively the same size and that they can be physical. Now, we know that they hand picked the kids that are in the league and it was not open to just anyone, but it gives you an idea of how you can take a group of "A/AA" players and teach them.

USA Hockey has done a disservice to a Sport just like the Players and owners are doing. Last years Pee Wee was a joke. We need better continuity amongst the refs as well. Funny how different the refs call a game between the rinks in D6 and from Upnorth. Sooner or later it will be a pastime and everyone will just play Bandy. With the money they take in, you would think they could come up with really good videos on how to Check, and each State could have a number of selected officials to teach and educate the kids and coaches on how to check properly.

luvuvgame
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:40 am

Re: D6 Checking from behind rule

Post by luvuvgame » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:41 am

buttend wrote:At the rink tonight, I was talking with a couple of contacts in D6 that are shaking their heads , frustrated with D6's new Checking from behind rule. They are saying its to a point where at the Bantam level, coaches are making a conscience decision to schedule less games/scrimmages to try to avoid the potential suspensions.

Biggest concern they are saying? Because there is no checking through PeeWee's, first year Bantams really do not know how to check or have the experience yet and do nor know how to avoid the check when the other player turns to protect himself or the puck exposing his back to the oncoming player. happened all summer with first year Bantams. Kids will be punished multiple times because they lack the experience of checking. This rule does not teach or fix the issue. It will push kids out of the game at an age where you need to keep the kids playing.

D6 refs try to control the games enough as it is, Checking from behind can be an interpretation call just as the boarding call now is.

Thoughts?

D6 Rule

Checking From Behind


5.3 Per MN Hockey when a checking from behind penalty has been assessed to a player, he/her will receive either a 5 minute major plus a 10 minute misconduct or a 5 minute major plus a game misconduct.


Bantam coaches must take a practice or two and teach the SKILLS of giving & receiving body checks....simple as that. There are numerous resources provided by USA Hockey to properly teach checking skills, including videos in the required age specific module.

Listen I agree, peewees should be checking, but they are not going to chage their mind on this now. IMO, D-6 should eliminate the suspensions for multiply check from behinds in a season. The call is too subjective and 30 years of being around the game I have NEVER seen a player intentionally run a guy from behind with the intention of hurting someone. In the old days when players could create time and space by holding up attacking players there was a lot less injury & infractions. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever go back to that.





If the same player received a second penalty in the same season for this infraction in either case the player will received an addition game suspension and the association president will be notified of the infraction.

For the third infraction during the same year the player will be suspended for an additional three games and must appear before the disciplinary committee.

A fourth infraction during the same year will result in an immediate suspension for the season.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:34 am

The bigger penalty will result in fewer calls. Refs called checking from behind less often than they should have to begin with, then when the penalty went from 2+10 to 5+10, there were even more boarding and cross checking calls. In many refs' minds, they'll start trying to judge intent before they send a kid to possible suspension, which will completely undermine the kids’ learning process – from the time little kids grab a stick, they learn that it is a penalty to trip a kid, whether they mean to put their sticks between the kids’ skates or not. No ref wants to call checking from behind (they’d all rather the kids didn’t do it in the first place), and many will refrain from making that call unless a kid goes down hurt, which is too late.

nofinish
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:44 pm

Post by nofinish » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:39 am

Biggest concern they are saying? Because there is no checking through PeeWee's, first year Bantams really do not know how to check or have the experience yet and do nor know how to avoid the check when the other player turns to protect himself or the puck exposing his back to the oncoming player. happened all summer with first year Bantams. Kids will be punished multiple times because they lack the experience of checking. This rule does not teach or fix the issue. It will push kids out of the game at an age where you need to keep the kids playing.
You mean peewee coaches aren't using their valuable ice time to teach checking even though peewees can't check? Funny no one saw this coming :roll:

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:43 am

InigoMontoya wrote:The bigger penalty will result in fewer calls. Refs called checking from behind less often than they should have to begin with, then when the penalty went from 2+10 to 5+10, there were even more boarding and cross checking calls. In many refs' minds, they'll start trying to judge intent before they send a kid to possible suspension, which will completely undermine the kids’ learning process – from the time little kids grab a stick, they learn that it is a penalty to trip a kid, whether they mean to put their sticks between the kids’ skates or not. No ref wants to call checking from behind (they’d all rather the kids didn’t do it in the first place), and many will refrain from making that call unless a kid goes down hurt, which is too late.
Maybe the better step would be to lessen the penalty for check from behind to a two minute minor and hand the penalties out like tic tacs. Like tripping, kids will get used to the penalty and refrain from doing it.

I used to referee. Such a tough penalty to call, and that was twenty years ago. This issue has been around for a long time.

DrGaf
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Post by DrGaf » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:04 am

nofinish wrote:
Biggest concern they are saying? Because there is no checking through PeeWee's, first year Bantams really do not know how to check or have the experience yet and do nor know how to avoid the check when the other player turns to protect himself or the puck exposing his back to the oncoming player. happened all summer with first year Bantams. Kids will be punished multiple times because they lack the experience of checking. This rule does not teach or fix the issue. It will push kids out of the game at an age where you need to keep the kids playing.
You mean peewee coaches aren't using their valuable ice time to teach checking even though peewees can't check? Funny no one saw this coming :roll:
:!:
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.

IHEA
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:37 am

Post by IHEA » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:13 am

nofinish wrote:
Biggest concern they are saying? Because there is no checking through PeeWee's, first year Bantams really do not know how to check or have the experience yet and do nor know how to avoid the check when the other player turns to protect himself or the puck exposing his back to the oncoming player. happened all summer with first year Bantams. Kids will be punished multiple times because they lack the experience of checking. This rule does not teach or fix the issue. It will push kids out of the game at an age where you need to keep the kids playing.
You mean peewee coaches aren't using their valuable ice time to teach checking even though peewees can't check? Funny no one saw this coming :roll:
That's the problem with many coaches - the "what's in it for me" mentality. It's not going to help me win games so why bother? Let's leave aside that checking is just an extension of rubbing out the player to separate the man from the puck which is what you do at PW and an easy add-on to properly teach the skill instead of the head hunt skill that many adopt. Part of being a coach and being part of an association is to develop your players for this season and another part is to prepare them for their next level. The PW coaches that refuse teaching their PWs to check are lazy and have no respect for the the saftey and development of their players, nor do they give a damn for the Bantam coach or their association. Teaching checking is a skill. It does not require a huge amount of time. PWs are not idiots. They are old enough to turn checking on and off. If it is becomes a problem it is the coaches que to discipline the skaters. If you don't possess the skill of discipline then step aside for someone who can.

I also think there should be checking at PW.

pineline
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:34 am

Post by pineline » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:25 am

Per D3 refs at scrimmage last week, they've been given a directive from above to enforce more of the checking from behind. This includes all areas of the ice, just not along the boards. Even a stick to the back in front of the net is a checking from behind.

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:32 am

MNM JMH wrote:As if this wasn't going to be a problem? To take a 1st yr Bantam that my waigh 130lb now be hit by a 2yr bantam that may waigh 190lb. Well what you will get is the smaller kids turning to avoid the hit. now it becomes a hit from behind or boarding. MN should reconsider the checking rule for peewees.
Or try having a 6'2" 2nd year bantam collecting 2 head contact penalties a game because most 1st year players come up to his shoulder pads and that 1st year player has no idea how to protect himself or elude the impending danger. Look...Minnesota Hockey is banking on the fact that these kids are smart enough and can react quickly enough to adapt to the game on the fly. Will it work? Who knows but I can guarantee you the Minnesota Hockey marketing machine will continue to publish articles, studies, etc…that support their rule changes. Remember, when it comes to storytelling, nobody ever calls their own baby ugly. And trust me, MH will sing this no check at pee wee tune like Sinatra in Vegas in his prime. They can't turn back now and they won't. People's reputations are on the line here and whenever that happens the truth usually gets buried somewhere under talking point 9 or 10.

But hey...with checking out of pee wees now, at least the kids are safer right? I mean after all, there was a significant safety issue here that was corrected or did I read the reason for the rule change incorrectly?

That's sarcasm BTW...
"I find tinsel distracting"

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

Post by BadgerBob82 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:13 pm

The checking rule at Pee-Wees has nothing to do with most of what is being discussed. People like using the 1st year Bantam vs. the 2nd year Bantam to somehow prove a point? 190 pound Bantams can be 1st or 2nd year players, same as 125 pound Bantams.

I think the checking was removed at Pee-Wees because the referees were/are incapable of enforcing the rulebook. So they just removed checking.

This 4 CFB and you're banned goes beyond ridiculous. Everyone knows what a dangerous hit is. Be it a check from behind, an elbow to the head, a two-handed slash, a kick, a punch to the head, etc.

The fact remains the rules were changed because the referees were not making the right calls. What makes them think the right calls will be made with these new rules? The problem lies with the referees, fix the problem.

These rules have further changed the way referees will call the game.

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:35 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:The checking rule at Pee-Wees has nothing to do with most of what is being discussed. People like using the 1st year Bantam vs. the 2nd year Bantam to somehow prove a point? 190 pound Bantams can be 1st or 2nd year players, same as 125 pound Bantams.

I think the checking was removed at Pee-Wees because the referees were/are incapable of enforcing the rulebook. So they just removed checking.

This 4 CFB and you're banned goes beyond ridiculous. Everyone knows what a dangerous hit is. Be it a check from behind, an elbow to the head, a two-handed slash, a kick, a punch to the head, etc.

The fact remains the rules were changed because the referees were not making the right calls. What makes them think the right calls will be made with these new rules? The problem lies with the referees, fix the problem.

These rules have further changed the way referees will call the game.
With all due respect Badg, I don't think you could be any further from the truth. Not trying to pick a cyber argument here but from everything I have read, checking was removed from pee wees primarily due to safety concerns of the players. Increased concussions were mostly cited. And the USA Hockey subcomittee that studied this also cited decreased skill development because checking was present.

See here:
http://usahockeymagazine.com/article/20 ... -our-sport

You may see bad reffing on a consistent basis but that's not why they did this. Hence my comment earlier about wondering if the kids are safer today. Trust me that all of the Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey mouthpieces will be on their preapproved talking points if ever questioned about this now or in the future.
"I find tinsel distracting"

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:24 pm

We all know the reason checking was eliminated is because they blamed the introduction of checking at the Pee Wee level to the drop in numbers at that level. They got rid of checking because they think it will keep more kids in the sport and that means more dues for USAH.

The reality is that checking, both giving and taking a check, is a skill in and of itself. So they decided to choose one skill, stickhandling and toe dragging, over another, checking, as being more important. The result will be more kids skating with their heads down in the neutral zone or trying to toe drag their way around defenders when they hit Bantams and we all know that won't end well.

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

Post by BadgerBob82 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:43 pm

I agree the reasons USA has cited for removing checking. But I still say the problem lies with the referees not calling the rulebook correctly. The cause of the injuries may or may not be "legal" hits, but removing checking was the easiest way out.

And regarding SCBlueliner, yes checking is a skill, but the biggest skill in checking is skating and overall foot agility/balance. So those skills are still being taught at pee-wee, just not with the additional force of the bodycheck. But the angling, sealing to the wall, etc. is really the same skill set. The "heat seeking missle" checking is really not a skill, just aim, skate, and collide with 50-50 accuracy. Bad boots is the biggest hurdle to checking.

57special
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:23 pm

Post by 57special » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:29 pm

This year's first year Bantams already played one year of checking in Peewee and most played in AAA summer games with checking.

The Enlightened One
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:39 pm
Location: Some place cold

Post by The Enlightened One » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:29 pm

Yup, this year it won't be too big of a deal with checking since the PeeWees were checking for a year before it was removed. Next year though is going to be a blood bath. The numbers will drop as kids enter bantams which will make USA Hockey/MN Hockey want to remove checking from Bantams so that they don't lose numbers therefor reducing the cash flow .......... sorry ..... I meant to say so that Bantam hockey can now be safer, sorry. Also the number and severity of injuries is going to go up. We will have kids who are just entering puberty playing against kids who are really young men who have been working out. The kids who are going to get hurt the most are going to be those marginal skaters who play hockey but who for what ever reason do not play summer AAA hockey to get an introduction to checking. Already if you are in a penalty box or down on ice level doing a score board you hear the players comparing notes about who is going to get hit. They go after the younger smaller less skilled skaters who are sitting ducks. We are going to see injuries go up, concussions and etc, no matter how crazy D6 gets and how blindly MNHockey follows in their foot steps. This is gonna get crazy and some nice kids are going to get hurt worse than they should just so that MNHockey and USA Hockey don't lose the cash flow and so that they can say that they are continuing to grow the sport by keeping the numbers up.

There will be more stickers with numbers on them to add to the helmets.

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

Post by BadgerBob82 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:47 am

Ahhh, the answer is so simple. Make everyone play AAA hockey year round and there will be no problems moving from PW to Bantam!

Another example that we all owe the future of hockey to spring/summer/fall AAA programs.

The Enlightened One
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:39 pm
Location: Some place cold

Post by The Enlightened One » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:33 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:Ahhh, the answer is so simple. Make everyone play AAA hockey year round and there will be no problems moving from PW to Bantam!

Another example that we all owe the future of hockey to spring/summer/fall AAA programs.
Not at all. What this is has nothing to do with AAA hockey. What this is is way simpler than that. This is safety from the angle of reality with no checkbook figures involved.

I think that we need to realize that not all kids are going to continue with hockey when they start checking and accept it. Not a big deal, not a character defect or any such thing. They don't like hitting, so what. Those kids are going to drop out of hockey when checking starts and that is OK. For the kids who choose to stay with hockey though we now have a problem (or will have next year). We have kids who are not prepared for what is coming at them. PeeWee A teams (now AA teams) are built like squirt A teams. Smaller, quick kids who go right down the middle of the ice with their heads down so that they can dangle the goalie. They don't pass much, they don;t skate heads up and they are sitting ducks when they run into a kid who knows how to hit and who is allowed to hit. These kids are gonna get creamed, bad. What MNHockey needs to do it to put checking back into PeeWees and __CONTROL IT__ with an iron fist. Sit the refs down and show them videos of what is and is not allowed and get rid of the refs who can not/will not enforce them. Show the kids and the coaches the same videos with the same analysis. Make an extra signature lline at sign ups saying "I have seen and understand the checking enforcement video" and put the video on line and email a link to everybody. USA Hockey and MN Hockey can find my email when they want to spam me with one of their sponsors, they can find me now for this. Lay it out in clear small words and photos that we are serious about this. Pick a topic, say head contact, checking from behind, etc. and make it a priority. Like the NFL did years back when they said that Helmet to Helmet is no longer allowed. They showed them and told them and ENFORCE it. Do that for hockey. You can put checking back into hockey when the kids are smaller and the physics of the contact are still pretty insignificant (how much damage can a 90 pound kid hitting an 80 pound kid do???) and get them ready for it. Sure, you are gonna lose that money from those kids who drop as PeeWees rather than Bantams, your numbers will go down but that is going to happen anyhow. This will be safer for all kids at all levels as the kids will have 4 years of contact and body play going into high school where the differences between a 9th/10th grader and a 12th grader are huge.

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

Post by BadgerBob82 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:49 am

I totally agree the problem lies with the referees inability to call the rule book as it has been written for years. In fact, most or all of these "new rules" are not changes to the rule book, they are changes to the penalty time served and now suspensions.

I think your "blood bath is coming" prediction is wrong. There is plenty of passing and heads-up play at Pee-Wee hockey. So not sure what you're watching. AND there was plenty of body contact last year at PW. I think you are 100% wrong that Bantams will be a blood bath.

A and B1 hockey is generally played with a higher skill level than B2 and C. The lower skill levels are where I see more risk of injury. Both from poorly skilled hitters and poorly skilled hittees. I would be in favor of removing checking from the C level at all age groups.

SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:08 am

The Enlightened One wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:Ahhh, the answer is so simple. Make everyone play AAA hockey year round and there will be no problems moving from PW to Bantam!

Another example that we all owe the future of hockey to spring/summer/fall AAA programs.
Not at all. What this is has nothing to do with AAA hockey. What this is is way simpler than that. This is safety from the angle of reality with no checkbook figures involved.

I think that we need to realize that not all kids are going to continue with hockey when they start checking and accept it. Not a big deal, not a character defect or any such thing. They don't like hitting, so what. Those kids are going to drop out of hockey when checking starts and that is OK. For the kids who choose to stay with hockey though we now have a problem (or will have next year). We have kids who are not prepared for what is coming at them. PeeWee A teams (now AA teams) are built like squirt A teams. Smaller, quick kids who go right down the middle of the ice with their heads down so that they can dangle the goalie. They don't pass much, they don;t skate heads up and they are sitting ducks when they run into a kid who knows how to hit and who is allowed to hit. These kids are gonna get creamed, bad. What MNHockey needs to do it to put checking back into PeeWees and __CONTROL IT__ with an iron fist. Sit the refs down and show them videos of what is and is not allowed and get rid of the refs who can not/will not enforce them. Show the kids and the coaches the same videos with the same analysis. Make an extra signature lline at sign ups saying "I have seen and understand the checking enforcement video" and put the video on line and email a link to everybody. USA Hockey and MN Hockey can find my email when they want to spam me with one of their sponsors, they can find me now for this. Lay it out in clear small words and photos that we are serious about this. Pick a topic, say head contact, checking from behind, etc. and make it a priority. Like the NFL did years back when they said that Helmet to Helmet is no longer allowed. They showed them and told them and ENFORCE it. Do that for hockey. You can put checking back into hockey when the kids are smaller and the physics of the contact are still pretty insignificant (how much damage can a 90 pound kid hitting an 80 pound kid do???) and get them ready for it. Sure, you are gonna lose that money from those kids who drop as PeeWees rather than Bantams, your numbers will go down but that is going to happen anyhow. This will be safer for all kids at all levels as the kids will have 4 years of contact and body play going into high school where the differences between a 9th/10th grader and a 12th grader are huge.
Good post. Checking is s reality and kids dropping out is also a reality. Reffing education and compliance is one angle and the other is coaching education. Get coaches to sign off on guidelines that instruct them to discipline head hunters that are not checking to separate the body from the puck or cleanly finish a check. Many coaches do not know how to teach checking. If the overriding emphasis of our coaches is to teach separating the man from the puck and frown on the rest then you'll see better, safer hockey and you will not lose as many kids that are rightfully frightened of all the blow up hits that go on because coaches aren't properly teaching the skill and/or are not disciplining their players.

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

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:24 am

Put it back in from squirts on up.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:25 am

Post by My_Kid_Loves_Hockey » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:50 pm

Or try having a 6'2" 2nd year bantam collecting 2 head contact penalties a game because most 1st year players come up to his shoulder pads and that 1st year player has no idea how to protect himself or elude the impending danger. Look...Minnesota Hockey is banking on the fact that these kids are smart enough and can react quickly enough to adapt to the game on the fly. Will it work? Who knows but I can guarantee you the Minnesota Hockey marketing machine will continue to publish articles, studies, etc…that support their rule changes. Remember, when it comes to storytelling, nobody ever calls their own baby ugly. And trust me, MH will sing this no check at pee wee tune like Sinatra in Vegas in his prime. They can't turn back now and they won't. People's reputations are on the line here and whenever that happens the truth usually gets buried somewhere under talking point 9 or 10.

But hey...with checking out of pee wees now, at least the kids are safer right? I mean after all, there was a significant safety issue here that was corrected or did I read the reason for the rule change incorrectly?
I am a parent of one of these 5'-2" 100 lb 2nd year bantams and after watching 1 entire season of BA hockey, the issue is not as much with the bigger players getting penalties because they hit the smaller player........it's that it seems almost everybody thinks they have to have their hands/elbows/sticks up in the player they are checkings face........I watched my kid get hit with absolutely clean hits by a big player and they got a head contact penalty........but I could count 10 that were because of really bad contact to bigger players with elbows/hands/sticks.

Ultimately USA/MN hockey makes the rules they have to play with, so until they find out whether this is right or wrong we will have to deal with it.
I'm just thankful that my kid didn't have a year of no checking.

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

Post by BadgerBob82 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:14 pm

Another 1st hand example that the referees are to blame for these rule changes. I understand we need referees so that the games can be played. But these rules are a slap in the face to GOOD referees that now have their hands tied.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:04 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Ahhh, the answer is so simple. Make everyone play AAA hockey year round and there will be no problems moving from PW to Bantam!

Another example that we all owe the future of hockey to spring/summer/fall AAA programs.
Will FOUR Summers of checking help a sixth grade 2000 born before he enters bantams?

Post Reply