USAH to ban checking in pee-wee hockey

[StillAnEagle]

I have a small kid and as for this topic I don't care either way what happens. But I have to wonder where the research is that suggests that there will be more injury (bantam level and beyond) as a result.

And also, I would think that USA hockey cares whether or not we can be physical and compete against Canada at junior and higher levels and that this was a consideration in this decision making process.

[Mite-dad]

But I have to wonder where the research is that suggests that there will be more injury (bantam level and beyond) as a result.

None has been brought up. It is all speculation.

[seek & destroy]

But I have to wonder where the research is that suggests that there will be more injury (bantam level and beyond) as a result.

None has been brought up. It is all speculation.

As is the premise that started all this that there are more concussions & injuries then in the past. If that is really true, then perhaps a study should be done to determine if the HEP program is causing the problem because that has been around for a few years now.

The fact is that there is a heightened concern about concussions (i.e. the Messier project etc.) so when a peewee kid says they have a headache after a hit, parents say he has a concussion. Even doctors are prone to say you have a 'mild concussion' if a player says they were checked into the boards and have a headache or feel dizzy.

There typically is no baseline data for peewee players that the doctor can look at so they just tell them that they have a mild concussion and to take it easy for a few days.

[WB6162]

Maybe the Canadians will show just a little common sense and follow suit, do they value their children's brains and spinal columns as much as we do ours?

[Blue&Gold]

The physical maturity between peewee's is much less than the discrepancy between bantams. This reason alone should be reason enough as to why USA hockey would leave checking in its current form. My main reason for being against this is the physical development some players have around 14 years old. Would you rather have them learn to check when the size discrepancy is maybe 30 pounds or 100 pounds. Coaching at the Bantam level I can honestly say I have two players around 4'8 and 80 lbs and multiple players above 6'0 and 170lbs. Players failing to learn the necessary skills involved in giving and recieving a check when the physical development is this deviated is just a joke.

Also, for those of us in Minnesota (especially Northern Minnesota) we frequently play canadian teams. Are we now supposed to invite/attend Canadian teams tournaments where checking is allowed at the peewee level and now not check or have our kids overwhelmed at that age?

This reminds so much of that damn blue puck USA hockey came up with years ago for squirts which was a terrible idea. Just leave the game alone!

If you really want to limit injuries, then just enforce the actual rules. Its the same concept the NHL took when facing all the obstruction calls. Havings played, reffed, and coached I can tell you that calling a kid for a hit from behind as a two and a ten (when its an actual hit from behind) is a sufficient deterrent towards reckless behavior.

QFT This is my thought exactly. Quit screwing with the game.

[hockey hall dad]

This sounds like some really good stick handler parents getting together trying to change hockey's history which started long ago. It is not good for the game to eliminate checking just because a few kids were not taught proper techniques of how to check or take a check. Our program just started to impliment chacking clinics and I know the Anoka Program has mandatory checking videos or at least they use to have them. I was just at an Edina squirt game and our team got beat bacially because of physical play or more aggressive play which was very close to checking so maybe every kid should merely wave there stick by there opponent and let them skate on by. Good luck with this rule change I hope it does not go through and teach coaches how to teach playes proper technique.

[hockeyday]

I think football should be looked at next. This whole physical contact thing shouldn't be in the game. Give me a break. If you focus on teaching proper hitting techniques which many coaches don't and focus on enforcement problem solved. All banning peewee hitting for 80lb kids does is make sure 150lb kids are going to be in for a very rude awakening once they hit bantams and have to face strong, young men with twice the speed. Kids in Canada will be salivating in 1st year bantams when the US lambs come to play!!

[HShockeywatcher]

Get rid of the face masks. Players will see the ice better, have their heads up and avoid the dangerous collisions we see now days. Sure the checking from behind will still occur,(it shouldn't) but since the introduction of the full face mask, there has been an epidemic of shoulder injuries and concussions due to the fact that players have their heads down.

That's like Tom Coughlin saying to get rid of them in the NFL. Instead of actually making sure things are coached correctly and officiated correctly, let's put players at higher risk of injury...

I think football should be looked at next. This whole physical contact thing shouldn't be in the game. Give me a break. If you focus on teaching proper hitting techniques which many coaches don't and focus on enforcement problem solved. All banning peewee hitting for 80lb kids does is make sure 150lb kids are going to be in for a very rude awakening once they hit bantams and have to face strong, young men with twice the speed. Kids in Canada will be salivating in 1st year bantams when the US lambs come to play!!

In football, you hitting each other is a requirement. In hockey, you see very talented players not worry about checking until a certain point in their development. I've used him as examples in the past, but I watched Jordan Schroeder at St Thomas for a couple years and I saw him play against SCSU (as a junior) on the development team. In all those games, I don't remember seeing him getting checked or checking. He avoided it.

I agree completely with teaching/enforcing. What is probably being seen is that not happening. Difficult to change that with a rule.

Also, I watched the US vs. Can game and I thought Can was incredibly cheap. I thought several penalties should have been called for late hits/illegal hits. I'd much rather watch European hockey than Can thug hockey. When it gets to the point that hitting is more important than skill to win games, the game loses interest to me and millions of other potential viewers in the US.

I, for one, hope this rule does go into effect and think that many of you folks are blowing its effects out of proportion. The very few players that make it to the next level or two, will have no ill effects from it and might be more skilled because of it.

Also, many of you on here are very hypocritical. Rarely do I see a thread about big hits or big hitters. Its all about scorers and skilled players that impress people.

My credibility somehow seems to get lost when it's known I've never played hockey. Anything I say in a topic like this without an analogy is from those who have.

I have spoken with many over the years about checking and the effects. Yes, there are many times that checking is appropriate, that I will never deny. But there are many times when it is the sole purpose of players being on the ice, when a hockey move would be more appropriate in the situation.

Additionally, I've had so many people agree that situations like, but not limited to, "finishing the check" are so often very pointless but still encouraged.


The other thing I'm hearing here is this idea that you can only practice what you do in a game. If I am understanding it correctly, the league would be disallowing it in games at that level, not saying that you cannot teach your kids technique.

[TheSiouxSuck]

Perhaps redefining and enforcing existing penalties (charging comes to mind) and then possibly adding language to the rule book about dangerous, but currently legal, checks (The giant arm swing I see so many players do when they initiate contect and lead with their hands rather than their shoulders.)

[Mite-dad]

Football is a bad analogy. In football at young ages the hits are at a much slower speed. Players are equiped for hitting, they play on a soft grass field and most kids can run with fairly good balance and coordination. In hockey at the squirt and PW level, there is a wide descrepency in skill because it is on skates (difficult to master), the game is much faster than football, is played on a solid sheet of ice with hard walls containing the action. Apples and oranges.

[HShockeywatcher]

Perhaps redefining and enforcing existing penalties (charging comes to mind) and then possibly adding language to the rule book about dangerous, but currently legal, checks (The giant arm swing I see so many players do when they initiate contect and lead with their hands rather than their shoulders.)

The issue as I see it from my perspective, which is only one (and a very limited one at that), is who is judging the officials. From what I've seen/heard, coaches judge/rate the officials of their games. Not only does how they officiate affect how they are rated, but it affects whether or not they will be asked to officiate by those coaches again. I have multiple times heard officials complaining about specifics after games.

We recently saw "changes" in officiating in different sports agencies around the state and country. And in most, I won't say all, of those cases the changes were to simply call the game as written instead of down the slippery slope things go.

Look at the NBA this year; they clamp down on complaining about calls. We are over 1/3 of the way through the season and players are still getting technicals for arguing with officials. Why? There is a multimillion dollar (I'm guessing) organization watching the officials and what they do.

Not sure it's worth the money, as well as "changes to the game" many don't want, but you change this system and you start to change the problem.

[O-townClown]

1. I was just at an Edina squirt game and our team got beat bacially because of physical play or more aggressive play which was very close to checking

2. Good luck with this rule change I hope it does not go through and teach coaches how to teach playes proper technique.

I get so confused. USA Hockey says they want more physical play allowed at Squirts by allowing body contact. They say they want checking taught while kids are Pee Wees.

And you hope it does not go through why?

Oh yeah, the big blasts at age 11-12. I can take or leave those.

[GopherPuck15]

In football, you hitting each other is a requirement. In hockey, you see very talented players not worry about checking until a certain point in their development. I've used him as examples in the past, but I watched Jordan Schroeder at St Thomas for a couple years and I saw him play against SCSU (as a junior) on the development team. In all those games, I don't remember seeing him getting checked or checking. He avoided it.

So for all of the elite players, which is a very small percentage of the state, it's okay because those players can handle it? What about a team such as Alexandria last season? They were a bunch of average to better than average players who weren't elite by any means, but worked hard, played position, the body, etc and effectively earned a trip to the state tournament? Basically what you're saying is because a Division I, first round NHL draft choice could do it, why can't every other player?

[goldy313]

From the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published August 30, 2010......

Brown researchers, using data from 2001 - 2005, found the concussion rate in ice hockey at 10 per 10,000 participants ages 7-11 and 29 per 10,000 participants ages 12-17. Football is 8 and 27 respectively. Lead author Lisa Bakhos MD said, "We don't know if it's (the concussion rate) an actual increase; we hope it's an increase in awareness and reporting." Bakhos also notes that during a time when concussion reporting increased participation in the top 5 team sports decreased. The researchers estimated 385,000 children ages 7-17 participated in the top 5 team sports in 1997 falling to 330,000 in 2007.

My comment is...There is your 1/3 incidence in concussion rates and notice they had to throw bantams and midgets in the study group to get the increase. [/i]

[HShockeywatcher]

In football, you hitting each other is a requirement. In hockey, you see very talented players not worry about checking until a certain point in their development. I've used him as examples in the past, but I watched Jordan Schroeder at St Thomas for a couple years and I saw him play against SCSU (as a junior) on the development team. In all those games, I don't remember seeing him getting checked or checking. He avoided it.

So for all of the elite players, which is a very small percentage of the state, it's okay because those players can handle it? What about a team such as Alexandria last season? They were a bunch of average to better than average players who weren't elite by any means, but worked hard, played position, the body, etc and effectively earned a trip to the state tournament? Basically what you're saying is because a Division I, first round NHL draft choice could do it, why can't every other player?

Rhetorical question: Would it be better to study pro athletes' form to know how you should probably do something, or amateur athletes?

I'm not saying they will be as good, but doing things similarly work well.

[goldy313]

I know you said rhetorical question but...It depends on the sport.

In the NFL football is entertainment, the networks pay huge sums of money to show the games, then get to charge companies a great deal of money to air their ads. The league allowed spearing to be come common place because big hits sell, they have rules to allow more offense, and have turned it away from what amateur football is and what the NFL was even 20 years ago. The game isn't about blocking and tackling, it's about big fat guys getting in the way and big hits, for every Antione winfield there are 3 James Harrisons. You could say the same thing about the NBA and NHL, rule changes are designed to get butts in the seats not make the game better.

MLB is of the major sports the most fundementally sound though expansion has made any left handed kid in the country a pitching prospect and the steroid era may have been a short term gain but a long term ill the game went through.

[PuckU126]

Get rid of the face masks. Players will see the ice better, have their heads up and avoid the dangerous collisions we see now days. Sure the checking from behind will still occur,(it shouldn't) but since the introduction of the full face mask, there has been an epidemic of shoulder injuries and concussions due to the fact that players have their heads down.

That's like Tom Coughlin saying to get rid of them in the NFL. Instead of actually making sure things are coached correctly and officiated correctly, let's put players at higher risk of injury...

Joe Paterno said the same thing, the banning of face masks, after Eric LeGrand, a former football player from Rutgers, became paralyzed during the game. Click Here to See http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/profes ... f-football
On top of that you have the NFL crackdown on hits to help protect the players to a better degree. Interesting this crackdown by the NFL and this potentially this ruling both come up around the same time... Thoughts?

The face mask idea is valid and not bad; however, I don't see them being taken away. Instead we should adjust the education and training of these kids (at a young age) on how to hit properly and defend themselves. When I was young (as a PeeWee) my team would practice hitting on each other and we were taught to keep our heads up, don't check from behind, and how to give and take hits (basic fundamentals). I am not saying this method has been abandoned by other coaches, but more time training should be enforced by the coaches for the kids. Make a statute enforcing this or something before tampering with time line when kids are allowed to check. The answer isn't wait until bantams because then you will get more injuries.

Maybe the Canadians will show just a little common sense and follow suit, do they value their children's brains and spinal columns as much as we do ours?

I hope you don't honestly feel that way... The Canadians care about their children as much as US parents. If anything we should take a few lessons on how to train our children for the game of hockey.

[buzzershot]

No checking at the PeeWee level is plain and simple a dumb idea suggested by someone who obviously never played hockey at a competitive level.

[WB6162]

No checking at the PeeWee level is plain and simple a dumb idea suggested by someone who obviously never played hockey at a competitive level.

You call it dumb and stupid, I call it the rules now. Don't be surprised when 1st year Bantams are included next.

[old goalie85]

WB6162-How would you just do first year bantams? Have them wear red helmets??

[PuckU126]

No checking at the PeeWee level is plain and simple a dumb idea suggested by someone who obviously never played hockey at a competitive level.

You call it dumb and stupid, I call it the rules now. Don't be surprised when 1st year Bantams are included next.

You are aware 1st and 2nd year bantams play together, right?

[TheSiouxSuck]

25 (or so) years ago checking was changed to be allowed at the peewee level. This is a second hand opinion, but apparently it was done to decrease injuries occuring at the bantam level from kids who didnt know how to check. If true, I wonder why USA hockey chose to ignore history and pass this terrible rule...

Anyone a tad older than I have any insight as to why they originally lowered the checking age?

[nofinish]

WB6162 of course they will include first year bantams when they find that 150 lb kids that don't know how to give or receive actual body checks (not "rubbing or bumping")are frequently in the hospital.
Then I suppose you will support no checking in jr. gold and high school?

Continued education of coaches and increased enforcement is the answer.

[O-townClown]

No checking at the PeeWee level is plain and simple a dumb idea suggested by someone who obviously never played hockey at a competitive level.

It might be a dumb idea, but the guys that came up with it were pretty much all Division I college coaches.

I'd like to know your definition of a competitive level.

[nofinish]

SiouxSuck, Checking used to begin in squirts so they raised the age, not lowered it.
Too bad they didn't track injuries when squirts could check compared to when they raised the checking age.