Short Bench

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply
warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

Short Bench

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:47 am

There has been a lot written discouraging short benches but it still seems to be pretty common. Last weekend I saw EP Bantam AA do a short bench, a OMG Peewee AA playing one player on every other shift, and other teams running long shifts. Any thoughts?

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: Short Bench

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:10 am

warmskin wrote:There has been a lot written discouraging short benches but it still seems to be pretty common. Last weekend I saw EP Bantam AA do a short bench, a OMG Peewee AA playing one player on every other shift, and other teams running long shifts. Any thoughts?
Probably fine at the AA level in my opinion, especially Bantams. A level, probably not so much. B level, everyone should play equal, besides maybe Power Play, Penalty Kill or final minutes of a close game.

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

Short Bench

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:30 am

Not sure what might be defined as fine line. Plenty has been studied and written about player hockey development and the children's physical development. Granted some programs the 3rd line may drop dramatically but in the big programs where there are plenty of good players I don't see the rational of playing a short bench. Often bias is built into the concept of a short bench and then what happens when unfortunately someone gets hurt and the children on the short bench play. This is youth hockey and chances are pretty slim any of these kids will make D1 and even slimmer for the NHL.
I don't understand the win at all cost mentality at the youth level.

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

Post by 57special » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:08 am

Our association had to adopt a policy a couple of years ago mandating equal ice time, with exceptions for the higher levels during the playoffs/latter periods of games. All teams have an overall playing time target that each player has to meet.

IMO, if you're on the team, you should play a regular shift. You paid your money same as everyone else. I can see exceptions for undermanned teams in small associations where sometimes the better athlete gets loads of ice time because he can handle it more(due to his superior athleticism) than some teammates . Even that case would be a rare one, though.

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

Re: Short Bench

Post by JSR » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:18 am

warmskin wrote:Not sure what might be defined as fine line. Plenty has been studied and written about player hockey development and the children's physical development. Granted some programs the 3rd line may drop dramatically but in the big programs where there are plenty of good players I don't see the rational of playing a short bench. Often bias is built into the concept of a short bench and then what happens when unfortunately someone gets hurt and the children on the short bench play. This is youth hockey and chances are pretty slim any of these kids will make D1 and even slimmer for the NHL.
I don't understand the win at all cost mentality at the youth level.
Couldn't agree more.... I don't care if you are Bantam AA in the state tournament championship game. These are KIDS playing a kids game and adults are putting their adult egos in front of kids playing time. The way I see it is this, you have tryouts, you take kids on the team, if they are good enough to be selected for the team then they should be good enough to play on the team. That includes regular shifts as well as PP and PK time. I am not some tree hugging, everyone is the "same" type person, I am a coach who believes that if a kid was taken on your team then you should be able to develop that kid, if that kid has a good attitude and a good work ethic but is not developing then that is a shortcoming of the COACH pure and simple and maybe the coach needs to be "shorted". I have been around actual great coaches, coaches who win titles, develop kids and get kids to higher levels and not one of them has ever shorted the bench, they believe it's their duty to develop every kid on the team to their fullest potential so they can contribute in whatever way they can. DOes that mean everyone scores the same, no but he figures out ways for them to have positive impacts on the game in their own way so they can get equal playing time, that is a good coach

This is nuts!
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Short Bench

Post by This is nuts! » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:46 am

JSR wrote:
warmskin wrote:Not sure what might be defined as fine line. Plenty has been studied and written about player hockey development and the children's physical development. Granted some programs the 3rd line may drop dramatically but in the big programs where there are plenty of good players I don't see the rational of playing a short bench. Often bias is built into the concept of a short bench and then what happens when unfortunately someone gets hurt and the children on the short bench play. This is youth hockey and chances are pretty slim any of these kids will make D1 and even slimmer for the NHL.
I don't understand the win at all cost mentality at the youth level.
Couldn't agree more.... I don't care if you are Bantam AA in the state tournament championship game. These are KIDS playing a kids game and adults are putting their adult egos in front of kids playing time. The way I see it is this, you have tryouts, you take kids on the team, if they are good enough to be selected for the team then they should be good enough to play on the team. That includes regular shifts as well as PP and PK time. I am not some tree hugging, everyone is the "same" type person, I am a coach who believes that if a kid was taken on your team then you should be able to develop that kid, if that kid has a good attitude and a good work ethic but is not developing then that is a shortcoming of the COACH pure and simple and maybe the coach needs to be "shorted". I have been around actual great coaches, coaches who win titles, develop kids and get kids to higher levels and not one of them has ever shorted the bench, they believe it's their duty to develop every kid on the team to their fullest potential so they can contribute in whatever way they can. DOes that mean everyone scores the same, no but he figures out ways for them to have positive impacts on the game in their own way so they can get equal playing time, that is a good coach
Well said. I find it funny that nhl teams skate 3-4 lines,but in a peewee or bantam game coaches skate two lines and sprinkle in the third line and pull them off the ice the first chance he gets, and youth hockey is developmental. Parents are paying a lot of money to watch their kids be upset cuz they get a shift a period. Especially one hour peewee games. You miss one shift. U might only get a shift a period .

The other thing that's funny is watching the awesome power play line that fumbles it around and looks nothing like a power play.. I d bet u could put any line out there and just let them play and they'd score as much as the power play line..

The thing is most coaches who shorten the bench end up losing the games anyway, now u pissed of half your players just to lose anyway.. Makes no sense. It's tough to play well when ur not skating a regular shift.

And then you have the coach that turns there head when the blue chippers screw up and cost the team a goal but when a average or below average kid makes the same mistake they watching on the end of the bench.

And for all u coaches out there that like to skate your top one or two studs into the ground for the win to look like a good coach.. Think about it.

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

short bench

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:51 am

I read some excerpts from a new book written by Bobby Orr and one of his comments was that some youth coaches shouldn't be coaching at the youth level. I have a hard time understanding why some coaches go rogue and don't follow commonly accepted coaching norms like the short bench issue.

greybeard58
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm

Post by greybeard58 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:14 am

In 2005-06 season the Edina had what a couple coaches described to me as the best 1st line in the state. They also commented that while they did not have anyone that can skate with them Edina 2nd and 3rd lines were a bit weaker then what they had. The Edina coach kept his big guns on the ice all the time. Now come the state tournament, winning the first game 9-0 the third line barely saw any ice time. The Championship game same format run the 1st line and jump out to a 3-0 lead. As the game wore on the Edina 1st line was getting tired and at the end of the 2nd period tied 3-3 yes the final score they lost 5-3 and because of all the ice time logged they the 1st line was gassed.

I guess the old saying still holds you are no stronger than your weakest player. the only way to shorten a bench in youth hockey at all levels are for injuries and discipline.

This is nuts!
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:05 pm

Post by This is nuts! » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:24 am

greybeard58 wrote:In 2005-06 season the Edina had what a couple coaches described to me as the best 1st line in the state. They also commented that while they did not have anyone that can skate with them Edina 2nd and 3rd lines were a bit weaker then what they had. The Edina coach kept his big guns on the ice all the time. Now come the state tournament, winning the first game 9-0 the third line barely saw any ice time. The Championship game same format run the 1st line and jump out to a 3-0 lead. As the game wore on the Edina 1st line was getting tired and at the end of the 2nd period tied 3-3 yes the final score they lost 5-3 and because of all the ice time logged they the 1st line was gassed.

I guess the old saying still holds you are no stronger than your weakest player. the only way to shorten a bench in youth hockey at all levels are for injuries and discipline.[/quote

You re right at the end of the day the deepest teams teams make it the farthest. Coaches that put all the kids in position to be successful are best coaches. Sometimes splitting up the top line is the best thing to do. There is only one puck on ice. Your top three players will have it on their stick more if on separate lines..

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

agreement

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:37 am

so why do so much coaches disagree with what has been said on this forum and is generally agreed by most coaches? Yes, long and frequent shifts will gas players. Many of these youth teams spend a lot of time together and putting some kids on a pedestal certainly does not build team chemistry. If you look at some of the great coaches of any sport they almost all were great motivators, communicators as well as great at teaching skills. How do you motivate the part of the team that never or seldom plays?

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

Post by JSR » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:39 am

This is nuts! wrote:
greybeard58 wrote:In 2005-06 season the Edina had what a couple coaches described to me as the best 1st line in the state. They also commented that while they did not have anyone that can skate with them Edina 2nd and 3rd lines were a bit weaker then what they had. The Edina coach kept his big guns on the ice all the time. Now come the state tournament, winning the first game 9-0 the third line barely saw any ice time. The Championship game same format run the 1st line and jump out to a 3-0 lead. As the game wore on the Edina 1st line was getting tired and at the end of the 2nd period tied 3-3 yes the final score they lost 5-3 and because of all the ice time logged they the 1st line was gassed.

I guess the old saying still holds you are no stronger than your weakest player. the only way to shorten a bench in youth hockey at all levels are for injuries and discipline.[/quote

You re right at the end of the day the deepest teams teams make it the farthest. Coaches that put all the kids in position to be successful are best coaches. Sometimes splitting up the top line is the best thing to do. There is only one puck on ice. Your top three players will have it on their stick more if on separate lines..
While I advocate for equal playing time I also advocate that "like players" should be on the ice together. If there is a "drastic" difference in talent the best kids should skate together, the 2nd best should skate together etc... etc.... The probalem is when you put a really top end kid out there with a bunch of kids who cannot skate with him the top kid doesn't trust his line mates and becomes a puck hog, and the other kids start differing to that kid and it ends up being a cluster f$%k for everyone. Where as if "liek" player sare on the ice together then everyone feels emblodened to do their best and try and play the game the right way. I've observed this in many teams and think it applies. Now if everyone is within reasonable talent levels of eachother then you can mix and match at will and it doesn't become an issue either way

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

Re: agreement

Post by JSR » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:41 am

warmskin wrote:so why do so much coaches disagree with what has been said on this forum and is generally agreed by most coaches? Yes, long and frequent shifts will gas players. Many of these youth teams spend a lot of time together and putting some kids on a pedestal certainly does not build team chemistry. If you look at some of the great coaches of any sport they almost all were great motivators, communicators as well as great at teaching skills. How do you motivate the part of the team that never or seldom plays?
You can't unless they get the playing time. This is not the pros where your motiviation is money and earning a living, this is youth sports, playing time IS the motivator

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

short bench

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:50 am

There is certainly plenty written about short benches and most people would agree it is a bad idea (all things considered) so how do you get the word to coaches who think otherwise and continue to do it? Has anybody seen where a coach will have his top line(s) have extremely long shifts and the other weaker line(s) get short shifted, a more sophisticated version of a short bench?

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: short bench

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:04 am

warmskin wrote:There is certainly plenty written about short benches and most people would agree it is a bad idea (all things considered) so how do you get the word to coaches who think otherwise and continue to do it? Has anybody seen where a coach will have his top line(s) have extremely long shifts and the other weaker line(s) get short shifted, a more sophisticated version of a short bench?
I find it interesting that this only seems to be an issue with Hockey. Strictly speaking about the Bantam Level here. In PW and below I believe in equal playing time. But in Bantams, I don't see a problem with certain kids getting more ice time than others. Especially in Playoffs and Big games. I don't mean some kids don't play at all, but I don't think it has to be equal. By the time kids reach 8th-9th grade there is no sport where all the kids play equally. Go to a Middle School or JV Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, Football or pretty much any sport. The best kids always play the most. People aren't always happy about it but nobody seems to feel entitled to equal time the way they do in Hockey.

Heck, even in Minors Baseball, (9-10 yr olds), The Little League governing body mandates MINIMUM playing time for each kid. I believe last year it was that each kid had to play 2 innings. That's 2 innings out of 6. Notice how they don't mandate EQUAL time. And these are 9-10 year old kids! I never heard any complaints, yet you have people that are very passionate about 14-15 yr olds playing EQUALl time in Hockey. Not really advocating either way strongly, I just find that very interesting. I think it points to the differences in Hockey Parents from other sports.

Survey
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:35 am

Post by Survey » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:25 am

Here is some food for thought.

If you feel that your kid isn't getting enough ice time and he is on the highest level team for his age in youth hockey then why not ask your son if he would rather play down a level so he can have more playing time? I bet 9 out of 10 times that kid would look at you like wth are you talking about.

At that level playing time is fair....but no way in any shape or form is it ever equal.

Whether or not that is the right way or wrong way that's how it is and has been and always will be.

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

Post by @hockeytweet » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:35 am

Last weekend I saw EP Bantam AA do a short bench, a OMG Peewee AA playing one player on every other shift, and other teams running long shifts. Any thoughts
Let me preface this by stating that no one in this thread can say that they saw what you saw.
I was in Duluth but only saw EP once while waiting, and never saw OMG, but I just looked at the scores. Both of these teams went to Sunday, and had some close games. OMG won their semi-final 2-1. EP won their semi-final by a goal. OMG lost to Edina 6-4. EP beat Stillwater in O/T.

My point is, depending on what game you saw, and how long you watched, that could skew your view on how those two teams "short benched".
I don't see a problem with a Bantam AA team shortening their bench in the 3rd period of a tied game. Or even a Pee Wee AA team double shifting their best player on the ice in the 3rd period down a goal in the 'ship.

IMO, short benching at lower levels is unacceptable. At the BAA level, I think it is acceptable at the end of games with something on the line. Semi's, Final, etc.

I guess I would like to know if warmskin is withholding the fact that his kid plays for OMG or EP, and was benched. Because then he would be looking for affirmation on his anger about short-benching, while withholding important facts about any of those games.

Our own Bantam team rolls, and then sometimes shortens in the 3rd, depending on game situation. Although I've even witnessed the coaches rolling late in tight games too. Funny thing is, then about 5-6 parents start wondering why the coach doesn't shorten the bench. So guess what, parents are their own worst enemy. Everyone is OK with the bench getting short in tight games, until it is their own! Good stuff.

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

hockey is a little unique

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:41 am

Hockey is a little unique from most other sports since in theory it is designed to have players skate fast for a short period of time and then come off the ice. Other major sports don't generally have the fast sprinting like hockey does. It would be like asking a 100 yard sprinter to run a race and when he is finished to line up and do it again, not realistic. In other sports players certainly get tired, it a wide receiver runs a deep route at 100% in football he probably would not be able to do it at the same speed on the next play. No sense comparing apples to oranges. If players take long shifts they learn to coast instead of giving 100% and getting off. Line changing on the fly has to be coached like any other part of hockey. LPH had an article recently about the 5 things coaches hate to see and one of them was being lazy at line shifts getting on and off the ice. I am not a believer in it has always been that way. Hockey has been evolving but there are always people who want to stay in the 'good old days'. I recently heard a presentation from the CEO of a major medical device company that when he took over the company he saw areas for improvement. Many of the current executives didn't want change and he fired them all and he said his only regret is that he didn't fire them sooner. Bottom line if coaches don't want to follow coaching norms they should move on and I would agree with Bobby Orr that some youth coaches shouldn't be coaching.

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

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:57 am

short benches but it still seems to be pretty common
if coaches don't want to follow coaching norms
By definition, if it's pretty common, doesn't that make it the norm?

bestpopcorn
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am

Post by bestpopcorn » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:23 pm

In our small town we often have one bantam team only, they usually play A.

Often there is a kid or two that just started this year or last.

There are games when our new skaters can't even skate fast enough to stay on the same end as the play.

Should little Johnny new kids mom be mad when he gets shorted? Does little Johnny's mom know that Johnny is begging the coach to let him sit?

I love to sit next to these parents..."Put him in, put him in!!!....Take him out, take him out!!!"

People come to these forums looking for ammo. Each situation is unique.

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

Re: short bench

Post by JSR » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:51 pm

Froggy Richards wrote:
warmskin wrote:There is certainly plenty written about short benches and most people would agree it is a bad idea (all things considered) so how do you get the word to coaches who think otherwise and continue to do it? Has anybody seen where a coach will have his top line(s) have extremely long shifts and the other weaker line(s) get short shifted, a more sophisticated version of a short bench?
I find it interesting that this only seems to be an issue with Hockey. Strictly speaking about the Bantam Level here. In PW and below I believe in equal playing time. But in Bantams, I don't see a problem with certain kids getting more ice time than others. Especially in Playoffs and Big games. I don't mean some kids don't play at all, but I don't think it has to be equal. By the time kids reach 8th-9th grade there is no sport where all the kids play equally. Go to a Middle School or JV Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, Football or pretty much any sport. The best kids always play the most. People aren't always happy about it but nobody seems to feel entitled to equal time the way they do in Hockey.

Heck, even in Minors Baseball, (9-10 yr olds), The Little League governing body mandates MINIMUM playing time for each kid. I believe last year it was that each kid had to play 2 innings. That's 2 innings out of 6. Notice how they don't mandate EQUAL time. And these are 9-10 year old kids! I never heard any complaints, yet you have people that are very passionate about 14-15 yr olds playing EQUALl time in Hockey. Not really advocating either way strongly, I just find that very interesting. I think it points to the differences in Hockey Parents from other sports.
No it is an issue in other sports too. Last soccer season I had a parent threaten to "rip my arms off" in a game I was coaching because he felt his son did not get enough playing time in a particular game. Perhaps dead "equal" playing time is not the right word, but perhaps "fair" playing time would be more correct because the reality is you cannot give every single player EXACTLY even playing time as everyone else. The player in question who's father threatened me had received 42 minutes of playing time in a 70 minute game. Now this is a soccer game where 11 players play and we have 5 subs on the bench. Some players receive upwards of 60 minutes of playing time, usually defense, and the midfielders usually receive the least because they have to run the most and get the most tired, and no one receives less than 35 minutes of playing time ever, but I got threatened at 42 minutes of PT (mind you this is the least in shape kid with the worst attitude and worst work ethic on the team). So you guys are correct that "equal" playing time might not be feasible but FAIR playing time, and giving kids opportunities is what should be strived for. One way to even things out in a season is to try and pay attention to kids who might get shorted in PP time or 3rd period crunch time and give them extra opportunities in games where you are in control, give them PP time and extra third period shifts in those games and maybe by seasons end you will have developed everyone enough to roll the majority of the team without shorting the bench.... I've seen teams where a team is up 5-1 and they are still rolling out their PP1 unit and on the rare occasion they let other kdis play the PP they roll out all the kids who have never played the PP before, to me that is also kind of BS, how about rolling out a mix of guys to allow players to not just get the playing time but allow them to get some succes in it and real experience as well. ALOT of coaches have zero creativity and really lack bench management skills IMHO and that is why you see the problems

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:28 pm

57special wrote:Our association had to adopt a policy a couple of years ago mandating equal ice time, with exceptions for the higher levels during the playoffs/latter periods of games. All teams have an overall playing time target that each player has to meet.

IMO, if you're on the team, you should play a regular shift. You paid your money same as everyone else. I can see exceptions for undermanned teams in small associations where sometimes the better athlete gets loads of ice time because he can handle it more(due to his superior athleticism) than some teammates . Even that case would be a rare one, though.
I understand both sides of the argument, but my question still remains, why should hockey be different than everything else in life? As I mentioned before, kids do not play equal time in other sports. And what about the lead role in the class play, the kid who gets the solo in the choir concert, the kid who sits first chair in the band? Everyone paid their money and put in their time. If you're doing a production of "The Wizard of Oz," should there be 5 different Dorothys performing at different times? You need kids to dress up as trees for a successful production too. (3rd-4th liners).

I get the equal playing time argument and I think at PeeWee and below it should be the norm. But by the time the kids get to Bantams I think they're old enough to get a taste of real life, where nothing is equal. I think maybe us Hockey Parents have a tendency to coddle our kids too much and are afraid to let them experience failure and disappointment. I'm not sure that's the best way to prepare a kid for the real world.

I think debating the question of why people think Hockey is so different than everything else would be an interesting topic.

warmskin
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:49 am

real life

Post by warmskin » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:56 pm

I am not a proponent of the 'real life' argument. All children grow up with good and bad life experiences, sports should be a positive outcome for all children. My older son grew up in the Washington, DC area and some of his life experiences were difficult to explain but I addressed them as well as I could. Probably not many of your children have attended military funerals at Arlington National Cemetery or had to explain why a young soldier was wearing a prosthetic leg, that is 'real life'.

There is no rush for children to grow up, that happens soon enough and certainly the bad behavior of adults is not learning how to grow up and face the real world. Certainly life is unfair but adults should be able to rationally explain the situation which often they don't do if Johnny is short shifted or Mary doesn't get enough playing time in soccer.

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

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:10 pm

Maybe the first step should be to ask Johnny why he was short shifted.
My guess is he knows; he may not be honest about it, but he knows.

This is nuts!
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:05 pm

Post by This is nuts! » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:24 pm

I agree fair play should be used instead of equal play.. And i think there is a difference between bantams and pewees as far as fair play goes. But I find it funny that a lot of teams carry 12-13 skaters and the coach still can't find a way to use all their players.

I think there are times and circumstances when u might shorten the bench, but they way I'm seeing the thread is the coaches that have teams that are going to be around 500 at the end of the year. And they shorten the bench in all games only to win about half their games. And many of those games they would have won anyway.. It just doesn't make since ..

If ur a coach and only want to skate two lines then keep 10 players and see how u do... Don't keep 2-3 extra kids just incase someone gets sick...

Just remember this is youth athletics.. Nothing more...

Oh ya and my all time favorite is the coaches kid who is a third liner playing on the second line.. Or second liner playing on the first line.. Always love that one...

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: real life

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:27 pm

warmskin wrote:I am not a proponent of the 'real life' argument. All children grow up with good and bad life experiences, sports should be a positive outcome for all children. My older son grew up in the Washington, DC area and some of his life experiences were difficult to explain but I addressed them as well as I could. Probably not many of your children have attended military funerals at Arlington National Cemetery or had to explain why a young soldier was wearing a prosthetic leg, that is 'real life'.

There is no rush for children to grow up, that happens soon enough and certainly the bad behavior of adults is not learning how to grow up and face the real world. Certainly life is unfair but adults should be able to rationally explain the situation which often they don't do if Johnny is short shifted or Mary doesn't get enough playing time in soccer.
You make some very good points. No, my son has never attended a funeral at Arlington. He did attend the funeral of his classmate who drowned in a swimming pool at age 6 though. Certainly no less traumatic, but I'm not sure what that has to do with playing time in hockey. Nothing in life, including sports, will ever be a positive outcome for ALL children. We would all love to see that but it just isn't reality. I think you nailed it when you said adults need to be there to explain the situations to their kids and help them get through it. That's what Parenting is. By doing that you can turn a negative situation into a positive learning experience. And success is so much sweeter after you've experienced failure.

Post Reply