PeeWee checking

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

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

Post by JSR » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:04 am

Section 8 guy wrote:The comment has been made that they need to have checking in PeeWees so kids can learn how to check properly when smaller and can learn how to move up ice with their head up so they can learn to avoid hits. The fact that 11-12 year olds can't multitask is the exact science that contributed to getting support for the change. They aren't capable of focusing on multiple things at the same time at that age......I.e. Stick handling and not getting drilled. They aren't built in PeeWees to learn what people are suggesting they would learn.

I get both sides of the discussion. It's reasonable to believe that checking in PeeWees makes sense. The science says otherwise........and I'm not sure the size differences aren't actually greater in PeeWees than they are in Bantams......but ok. I'm still going with the science over someone's anecdotal observations.

That said, most of the concerns expressed about the risks to smaller kids in Bantams can be reduced if officials actively call the penalties that should be called. Eliminated?....no. Reduced?......yes. And no I don't mean calling it like girls hockey. I mean call the penalties that should be called when a kids focus is more on blowing someone up than it is on separating them from the puck. I couldn't disagree more that more injuries come in front of the net than they do from blow up hits.

The refs can impact this whole issue. Big time. And if you don't think so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And if someone truly believes this is about USA Hockey somehow making more money......which has been documented they aren't.......well, you must be a blast at parties. ](*,) :roll:
Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:12 am

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Have you ever watched a squirt Choice league practice? They are practicing how to "take" a check by age 9. Girls and boys.
Yep. 3 clinics at the beginning of the Super Checking League season. Another clinic in November. Also, 15 minutes of every practice is focused on body contact. Battle drills. Separating player from puck and moving on from that moment to play hockey. Learning how to rub someone to the boards, etc.

Funny - those kids seem to be able to multi-task, both the boys and the girls. Amazing what happens when there is committing teaching of concepts and follow-through. The kids can learn and apply the concepts!!

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:10 am

Checking clinic...LOL.. what's next? A fighting camp for 5 year olds...

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:48 am

Checking clinic...LOL..
Actually very important at Squirt level. A lot of the teaching and drills has been moved to PeeWee level now because of actual checking moved to bantam for MN Youth. AAA teams must practice contact even more as the winter and summer season AAA teams face a lot of different opponents and some use a lot of body. Giving and taking contact. Using contact to your advantage. Angling, pinning, etc.

When kids enter checking people watching practices and games will see right away which team members understand how to use the body and how some players avoid it at all costs from day 1. That's where I mentioned football players, used to contact, often have a jump in acceptance. Checking requires dedicated practice and drills re: philosophy and mechanics.

Probably won't change but I much preferred seeing it taught at Squirt level and introduced in PeeWees.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:00 am

I agree. Checking should start at Squirts..Not Bantams. But there is no way the bus is heading back there. I just can't believe every time you turn around someone is selling some camp that parents actually believe is going to help their kid get to the NHL. Checking can easily be introduced into any practice. It doesn't require a separate check number. Save your money or use it to put a sport court in your backyard. But for those of you that have no problem writing out check after check after check, I'm sure someone will soon have a clinic that specializes in 5 on 3 penalty kills or how to stand during the national anthem

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:34 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I agree. Checking should start at Squirts..Not Bantams. But there is no way the bus is heading back there. I just can't believe every time you turn around someone is selling some camp that parents actually believe is going to help their kid get to the NHL. Checking can easily be introduced into any practice. It doesn't require a separate check number. Save your money or use it to put a sport court in your backyard. But for those of you that have no problem writing out check after check after check, I'm sure someone will soon have a clinic that specializes in 5 on 3 penalty kills or how to stand during the national anthem
Writing another "check" is a red herring here. My daughter's checking clinics are a part of her Super League season, not a separate "check." Five of her 71 practices are dedicated to learning pinning, how to win corner battles, parallel checking, rubbing someone to the boards, etc., as well as 10-15 minutes of every other practice.

Compare to her U10A season, where a grand total of 20 minutes was spent all season on teaching body contact.

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

Post by JSR » Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:27 pm

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I agree. Checking should start at Squirts..Not Bantams. But there is no way the bus is heading back there. I just can't believe every time you turn around someone is selling some camp that parents actually believe is going to help their kid get to the NHL. Checking can easily be introduced into any practice. It doesn't require a separate check number. Save your money or use it to put a sport court in your backyard. But for those of you that have no problem writing out check after check after check, I'm sure someone will soon have a clinic that specializes in 5 on 3 penalty kills or how to stand during the national anthem
Probably the best checking clinic my son was ever part of was free and was put on by the referees and coaches of the North American Hockey Classic in Winnipeg. It was for squirts because they allow checking at squirts up there at that tournament. It was one of the best things I've ever seen and much of what my son knows about checking still harkens back to that clinic. Just because some one offers a camp or a clinic doesn't always mean it's some big check to be written. I offer camps and clinics down here and I just divide the ice costs by number of skaters most of the time, I'd do them for free if ice was free but it's not and out door ice isn't readily available a good share of the time in southern WI... That said checking clinics and camps have been prevalent for 20+ years and maybe longer because as much as it "should" be part of practice the reality is in many places it's not. And it's not about getting to the NHL for 90% of the parents signing up, it's literally because they are afraid if the kids don't learn it properly they will get injured, no other reason. Right or wrong because it's not taught in many places, or not taught properly in many places these camps are important things for many areas so kids can learn it properly. We've got a Pee Wee team in my town where I live where the head coach never played hockey, never skated before this season but they literally could find n one to coach the team so he said he'd go through the USA Hockey stuff and be the coach. Do you honestly believe he's going to be able to teach this stuff when he can barely stand up on skates? That is what you deal with in much of the USA that is not Minneapolis, MN

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:29 pm

All I am saying is that kids don't need to go to a checking clinic just to be decent hockey players. My guess is if you surveyed every NHL player today 90-95% of them never went to an actual checking clinic (especially if it costed their parents money). Let's call a spade a spade. it's an opportunity for someone to "make money." Which I'm fine with...I just won't be one paying it...

People can defend the money they spend on clinics, camps and breakfast clubs all they want but at the end of the day I highly doubt it has any measurable effect on increasing those NHL odds. Oh and if your kid can't stand up by 5?? why are you wasting money at 13-14 for a checking clinic. Aren't most scholarships handed out by the time someone turns 5 now?

Save your money and take that time and drive him over to the local park. I guarantee you he will have more fun there and the 3-4 hours of pond hockey trumps a 3 hour checking clinic anytime, anyplace.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:43 pm

yesiplayedhockey wrote:All I am saying is that kids don't need to go to a checking clinic just to be decent hockey players. My guess is if you surveyed every NHL player today 90-95% of them never went to an actual checking clinic (especially if it costed their parents money). Let's call a spade a spade. it's an opportunity for someone to "make money." Which I'm fine with...I just won't be one paying it...

People can defend the money they spend on clinics, camps and breakfast clubs all they want but at the end of the day I highly doubt it has any measurable effect on increasing those NHL odds. Oh and if your kid can't stand up by 5?? why are you wasting money at 13-14 for a checking clinic. Aren't most scholarships handed out by the time someone turns 5 now?

Save your money and take that time and drive him over to the local park. I guarantee you he will have more fun there and the 3-4 hours of pond hockey trumps a 3 hour checking clinic anytime, anyplace.
First of all - there's no outdoor ice in the Twin Cities. My daughter already goes to the Oval every chance she gets. The local non-refrigerated rinks? Nope, not until mid-January.

But to the point - having a daughter who understands body contact, positioning, battling, pinning is immeasurably helpful in anticipation of high school hockey. To pretend these aren't skills to learn and practice is highly problematic, especially considering if they're done incorrectly they lead to injury.

And if the teaching of checking / body contact is a part of my daughter's winter season schedule, what's the precise problem here?

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Guys I mostly agree with what your saying..that any instruction is good for our kids. What I struggle with is we've all been "clinic/camp" to death. I even hear parents now talk about the 10,000 hour rules from the book outliers....That is just crazy...You talk about the injuries associated with not learning body position or checking. What you are forgetting is the staggering number of injuries 10,12, 15 year old's now have as a result of over-use....It's mind boggling..if you don't believe me, walk into Tria and ask them who they spend all their day treating now. It's not 80 year old's with broken hips. It's 12 year old kids with bad back, knees and hips... I know a ton of guys who played in the NHL..Ask them where they learned the game...it was on the pond, or in the alley. It wasn't from dad sending to camp after camp after camp.

I agree lessons are important and yes I wish there was more ice available inside our association so that you don't have spend more money. But let's all just step back a little. Below is a great book to read called Selling the dream .

JSR- I get your point that many people aren't spending money on all this stuff expecting an NHL contract but even you have to admit, the cost for kids to play hockey today has spiraled out of control.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1533 ... eams-worth

http://thechronicleherald.ca/books/1128 ... am-factory

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:48 pm

JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:11 am

Here are my final thoughts on this (probably)

Dads that send their kids to Made and/or bleed Orange will typically buy into whatever it is Bernie is selling. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong it just means they have a blank check when it comes to their kids hockey

This state will never ever go back to checking at Squirts. Heck if anything it may slide the other way. I do prefer the style up in Canada when even at 6, Canada kids were rubbing the Minnesota boys along side the boards. Our parents would scream from the stands "that's a check"...no it's a good play.

Checking is so much of an impulse...or instinct play. Even when taught properly at all those camps, it is still used wrong time and time again. Education (where and when) to check is important as is what to do to eliminate your exposure when you're in a vulnerable position... But as I've stated before, no way will my kid be standing in a line watching kid practice body checks at 1/2 the speed the game is played at..He'll be on the pond, smiling, having fun, practicing all sorts of goofy moves and dreaming he's one day coming down on a breakaway with 10 seconds left of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup.

offtheglas
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:07 am

Post by offtheglas » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:12 am

Half of PW aged players in MN are Bantam eligible in the rest of the US. I was opposed to this when it first came out but feel there should be some modification. Checking in PWA or AA should be allowed but the current rule for the B level would be a good idea for development. This was passed using concussions as a focal point but cognitive development of young players is the biggest reason it was put in place.

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:44 am

offtheglas wrote:Half of PW aged players in MN are Bantam eligible in the rest of the US. I was opposed to this when it first came out but feel there should be some modification. Checking in PWA or AA should be allowed but the current rule for the B level would be a good idea for development. This was passed using concussions as a focal point but cognitive development of young players is the biggest reason it was put in place.
Nope, that condemns those B kids to never being able to move up to the A or AA ranks. Open up checking at all levels in PeeWee hockey and the problem is fixed.

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

Post by JSR » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:01 am

Section 8 guy wrote:
JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.
The vote was based on retention at the Pee Wee level. They learned that the Pee Wee level was where they lost the most amount of players and they think/thought it was due to checking being introduced at that level. They thought, and it was common knowledge that they thought by eliminating checking in pee wees it would retain more players for another year or two and then that would lead to more of them continuing into bantams and beyond. There was literally nothing else to the decision. You are misinformed if you think otherwise

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

Post by JSR » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:06 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:Guys I mostly agree with what your saying..that any instruction is good for our kids. What I struggle with is we've all been "clinic/camp" to death. I even hear parents now talk about the 10,000 hour rules from the book outliers....That is just crazy...You talk about the injuries associated with not learning body position or checking. What you are forgetting is the staggering number of injuries 10,12, 15 year old's now have as a result of over-use....It's mind boggling..if you don't believe me, walk into Tria and ask them who they spend all their day treating now. It's not 80 year old's with broken hips. It's 12 year old kids with bad back, knees and hips... I know a ton of guys who played in the NHL..Ask them where they learned the game...it was on the pond, or in the alley. It wasn't from dad sending to camp after camp after camp.

I agree lessons are important and yes I wish there was more ice available inside our association so that you don't have spend more money. But let's all just step back a little. Below is a great book to read called Selling the dream .

JSR- I get your point that many people aren't spending money on all this stuff expecting an NHL contract but even you have to admit, the cost for kids to play hockey today has spiraled out of control.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1533 ... eams-worth

http://thechronicleherald.ca/books/1128 ... am-factory
I don't know a youth sport that hasn't spiraled out of control money wise. We talk about hockey on this forum and that is the focus but soccer, Lacrosse, baseball have all spiraled out of control. And don't get me started on gymnastics, figure skating, dance and cheerleading which put our hockey costs to shame with how expensive they are.

Listen I agree with you to a degree that I do see some families chasing every opportunity presented to them and it's crazy.... I personally don't chase every opportunity for my kids, and my kids take long breaks and are multi sport athletes but as I mentioned above, some camps and clinics are worth it, especially in certain parts of the country, and checking clinics are at the top of my list as worth while camps for kids to attend in our area because it isn't taught anywhere else down here.

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:30 pm

JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:
JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.
The vote was based on retention at the Pee Wee level. They learned that the Pee Wee level was where they lost the most amount of players and they think/thought it was due to checking being introduced at that level. They thought, and it was common knowledge that they thought by eliminating checking in pee wees it would retain more players for another year or two and then that would lead to more of them continuing into bantams and beyond. There was literally nothing else to the decision. You are misinformed if you think otherwise
Hogwash....signed, Mr Uniformed

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

Post by JSR » Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:20 am

SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:
JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.
The vote was based on retention at the Pee Wee level. They learned that the Pee Wee level was where they lost the most amount of players and they think/thought it was due to checking being introduced at that level. They thought, and it was common knowledge that they thought by eliminating checking in pee wees it would retain more players for another year or two and then that would lead to more of them continuing into bantams and beyond. There was literally nothing else to the decision. You are misinformed if you think otherwise
Hogwash....signed, Mr Uniformed
I was privvy to the conversations as I know some high level USA Hockey people. I even remember commenting that I didn't think it was going to help attrition/retention at all because I didn't think it was the main reason kids left the sport at that age, that is an age where you see the exact same type of attrition in all sports and other extra-curricular activities, it's just the age when kids start thinking more for themselves and wanting to do or focus on other things, I felt checking had very little to do with it. Again you are rewriting history, the entire subject came up not due to concussions (which were not a hot button topic like they are now back then) but due to attrition numbers at the age level. Think what you want but it doesn't change the facts. Concussions are now a hot button topic, some are trying to rewrite history and use concussions to further push certain agendas in a certain direction but the initial taking checking out of pee wees back then was retention driven. What you believe is of no consequence to the reality

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

Post by elliott70 » Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:07 am

Player retention was high on the list, but so were concussions as well as other injuries.

It was not a one issue topic.

Unfortunately it was not a Mayo study but a Canadian study that put it over the top. (Why unfortunate? Not that it was Canadian but that it was somewhat anecdotal. As well as what the USAH study was - which was heavy emphasis on player retention).

JSR is at least partially correct.

I was in the room, part of the discussion.

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

Post by JSR » Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:27 am

elliott70 wrote:Player retention was high on the list, but so were concussions as well as other injuries.

It was not a one issue topic.

Unfortunately it was not a Mayo study but a Canadian study that put it over the top. (Why unfortunate? Not that it was Canadian but that it was somewhat anecdotal. As well as what the USAH study was - which was heavy emphasis on player retention).

JSR is at least partially correct.

I was in the room, part of the discussion.
I had forgotten about the anecdotal Canadian study, that's right they did try and use that, good call Elliot..... I'd agree that it technically was not a one issue topic but the retention seemed to be the primary issue. What you are saying is much more in line with the way I remember it as well...

nobody
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:13 am

Post by nobody » Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:40 pm

I have often thought the SL process was superior. Start-No check, after a couple of weeks parallel checks. Another couple weeks diagonal checks. With full checks the final step in the progression.

The whole system works because it is skill based and not political or age based.

Unfortunately the refs at MN made are on average a level above MN hockey refs, and are more consistent and capable of enforcing. (even though they are often the same people)

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:41 pm

JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:
JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.
The vote was based on retention at the Pee Wee level. They learned that the Pee Wee level was where they lost the most amount of players and they think/thought it was due to checking being introduced at that level. They thought, and it was common knowledge that they thought by eliminating checking in pee wees it would retain more players for another year or two and then that would lead to more of them continuing into bantams and beyond. There was literally nothing else to the decision. You are misinformed if you think otherwise
Hogwash....signed, Mr Uniformed
I was privvy to the conversations as I know some high level USA Hockey people. I even remember commenting that I didn't think it was going to help attrition/retention at all because I didn't think it was the main reason kids left the sport at that age, that is an age where you see the exact same type of attrition in all sports and other extra-curricular activities, it's just the age when kids start thinking more for themselves and wanting to do or focus on other things, I felt checking had very little to do with it. Again you are rewriting history, the entire subject came up not due to concussions (which were not a hot button topic like they are now back then) but due to attrition numbers at the age level. Think what you want but it doesn't change the facts. Concussions are now a hot button topic, some are trying to rewrite history and use concussions to further push certain agendas in a certain direction but the initial taking checking out of pee wees back then was retention driven. What you believe is of no consequence to the reality
I guess we must know some of the same people, but have different conversations and meetings with them. I'll agree with Mark that JSR is partially right, but I disagree with the priority and emphasis. I feel that to present a multi year planning process, that involved many experts and studies from around the world from the perspective of a conversation or two, or however many, is irresponsible and inaccurate reporting.

Priority number 1 from the Player Development Committee: Align with the science that guide the principals of Long Term Athlete Development

Priority number 2 and a later addition by the safety committee to the LTAD discussions by the Player Development committee: Safety and concussion prevention

Priority number 3: Retention, not for the purpose of lining the pockets of USA Hockey, but to possibly retain players within the objectives of the ADM and LTAD

This was a collaborative effort by USA Hockey, along with Hockey Canada involving multiple committees, each with a different priority and emphasis. I will reiterate my belief that to present that checking was removed from 12U hockey as a retention method is incomplete information. To present the reason as a money maker is just wrong.

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

Post by JSR » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:34 pm

SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:
JSR wrote:Actually through proper teaching and repetition it can be taught and they can multitask, that is also proven. Hence the we are actually advocating is to actually have BODY CONTACT/CHECKING start in squirts. With proper teaching and greater emphasis on proper calling by refs they would be proficient by the time they were bantams. Also, there is definitely size discrepancy in pee wees but he greatest size discrepancy is by far in bantams
JSR, what you are referencing is your observations. This decision wasn't made based on a few guys grabbing a cup of coffee and watching a dozen bantam practices and fifteen PeeWee practices and then taking a vote to see what they though 11 year olds are capable of versus 14 year olds. It was based on the science and physiology of the brain over a very broad population of kids. It's a very thorough study, process and decision. And again the same conclusion was arrived at by two separate and distinct governing bodies.

With all due respect, I'm putting more stock in the science and what the guys at Mayo are thinking over what a handful of part time coaches think they see at the rink.
The vote was based on retention at the Pee Wee level. They learned that the Pee Wee level was where they lost the most amount of players and they think/thought it was due to checking being introduced at that level. They thought, and it was common knowledge that they thought by eliminating checking in pee wees it would retain more players for another year or two and then that would lead to more of them continuing into bantams and beyond. There was literally nothing else to the decision. You are misinformed if you think otherwise
Hogwash....signed, Mr Uniformed
I was privvy to the conversations as I know some high level USA Hockey people. I even remember commenting that I didn't think it was going to help attrition/retention at all because I didn't think it was the main reason kids left the sport at that age, that is an age where you see the exact same type of attrition in all sports and other extra-curricular activities, it's just the age when kids start thinking more for themselves and wanting to do or focus on other things, I felt checking had very little to do with it. Again you are rewriting history, the entire subject came up not due to concussions (which were not a hot button topic like they are now back then) but due to attrition numbers at the age level. Think what you want but it doesn't change the facts. Concussions are now a hot button topic, some are trying to rewrite history and use concussions to further push certain agendas in a certain direction but the initial taking checking out of pee wees back then was retention driven. What you believe is of no consequence to the reality
I guess we must know some of the same people, but have different conversations and meetings with them. I'll agree with Mark that JSR is partially right, but I disagree with the priority and emphasis. I feel that to present a multi year planning process, that involved many experts and studies from around the world from the perspective of a conversation or two, or however many, is irresponsible and inaccurate reporting.

Priority number 1 from the Player Development Committee: Align with the science that guide the principals of Long Term Athlete Development

Priority number 2 and a later addition by the safety committee to the LTAD discussions by the Player Development committee: Safety and concussion prevention

Priority number 3: Retention, not for the purpose of lining the pockets of USA Hockey, but to possibly retain players within the objectives of the ADM and LTAD

This was a collaborative effort by USA Hockey, along with Hockey Canada involving multiple committees, each with a different priority and emphasis. I will reiterate my belief that to present that checking was removed from 12U hockey as a retention method is incomplete information. To present the reason as a money maker is just wrong.
Actually I honestly wouldn't doubt it if we actually do know some f the same people. In the big scheme it is a small hockey world. And I think we both know there are things that are said publicly and things said privately that don't always align

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:04 am

SECoach wrote:. Priority number 1 from the Player Development Committee: Align with the science that guide the principals of Long Term Athlete Development

Priority number 2 and a later addition by the safety committee to the LTAD discussions by the Player Development committee: Safety and concussion prevention

Priority number 3: Retention, not for the purpose of lining the pockets of USA Hockey, but to possibly retain players within the objectives of the ADM and LTAD

This was a collaborative effort by USA Hockey, along with Hockey Canada involving multiple committees, each with a different priority and emphasis. I will reiterate my belief that to present that checking was removed from 12U hockey as a retention method is incomplete information. To present the reason as a money maker is just wrong.
Bingo.

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

Post by JSR » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:04 am

Section 8 guy wrote:The comment has been made that they need to have checking in PeeWees so kids can learn how to check properly when smaller and can learn how to move up ice with their head up so they can learn to avoid hits. The fact that 11-12 year olds can't multitask is the exact science that contributed to getting support for the change. They aren't capable of focusing on multiple things at the same time at that age......I.e. Stick handling and not getting drilled. They aren't built in PeeWees to learn what people are suggesting they would learn.

I get both sides of the discussion. It's reasonable to believe that checking in PeeWees makes sense. The science says otherwise........and I'm not sure the size differences aren't actually greater in PeeWees than they are in Bantams......but ok. I'm still going with the science over someone's anecdotal observations.

That said, most of the concerns expressed about the risks to smaller kids in Bantams can be reduced if officials actively call the penalties that should be called. Eliminated?....no. Reduced?......yes. And no I don't mean calling it like girls hockey. I mean call the penalties that should be called when a kids focus is more on blowing someone up than it is on separating them from the puck. I couldn't disagree more that more injuries come in front of the net than they do from blow up hits.

The refs can impact this whole issue. Big time. And if you don't think so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And if someone truly believes this is about USA Hockey somehow making more money......which has been documented they aren't.......well, you must be a blast at parties. ](*,) :roll:
Please stop saying squirts cannot multitask, if these U8 players can multitask (which is clearly on display), then I think 10 year olds can......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skirESmqQps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxWafpkR3k4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxGVSw6Ayw

Post Reply