The following Q&A was provided by USA Hockey regarding the proposed rule change to delay body checking until Bantams
USA HOCKEY – BODY CHECKING RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL
The proposed rule change will move the age of legal body checking in games from 12U to 14U.
HOW DID THE DISCUSSION BEGIN?
The body checking discussion is one that has been going on for a long time within USA Hockey. This is a complex and emotional issue and is being looked at from many angles. Although safety is obviously a huge concern, we didn’t approach this initially from the safety side of the equation. We began by looking at how players develop their hockey playing abilities. Over the past two years we began to evaluate how Squirt and Peewee skaters play and react in similar on-ice situations. We observed that Squirts tend to be more aggressive, and emphasize skills (skating, stick handling, passing and body position) in an attempt to make plays. The conclusion was simply that players at the Squirt level attempt to play the game in the correct manor. However, in the same situations many Peewee players react differently. What was observed was that players at the Pee Wee level tend to either let the opponent get the puck first so that they can initiate body contact or they lay off so that they don’t get hit. Although this may not be true for every player, we have found that it is common and prevalent at all levels of Pee Wee hockey throughout the United States. With this being said, we do know that physiologically (and most importantly), players at this age are in their prime “window of opportunity” to acquire sports skills. The current rules we have in place hinder our children from this acquisition of skills at the highest possible level.
WHAT ELSE WAS LEARNED DURING THE STUDY?
Although the original focus was not on the injury side of this issue, there has been so much medical research information brought forward that simply cannot be ignored. USA Hockey must always consider the health and safety of its players. There have been a number of recent studies (in Canada at the AAA level) showing that the serious injury rate at Peewee is 4 times greater in checking vs. non-checking leagues. Of note is the fact that the injury rate between those same two groups is identical in practice (low).
What also came to light is the fact that cognitively, the 11 year old brain has not fully developed the ability to anticipate well. Anticipation is 50% of a player’s ability to protect himself and avoid heavy contact that leads to these serious injuries. We realize there is should be contact in hockey; however, we do not want to place players into a situation where their cognitive skills are not yet fully developed to protect themselves. This is a function of brain development that players cannot “learn” by doing.
WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION PROCESS FOR USA HOCKEY?
USA Hockey’s Body Checking Sub-Committee is made up of experts from a variety of areas. This includes people like Dr. Mike Stuart from the Mayo Clinic who is USA Hockey’s Chief Medical Officer (all three of Dr. Stuart’s sons have played in the NHL), Al McInnis, Mike Millbury as well as many others. USA Hockey has taken a very inclusive look at this issue.
WOULDN’T THE RULE CHANGE HURT BIGGER PLAYERS?
During the Peewee years (11-12 years old), most male players are just on the cusp of hitting their adolescent growth spurt. This means that it is still to be determined who will end up being the bigger players in the long run. The player that has greater size and strength at Peewee may end up being on the average or smaller side when everything evens out during the later teens. This means that players that rely on size and strength at an early age do not develop the necessary playing skills they need to be effective later on. Body contact and body positioning skills are far more important for a player to acquire at the Peewee age and are the precursor skills to effective checking and playing skills as they get older.
What is BODY CONTACT vs. FULL BODY CHECKING?
It is not accurate to simply say USA Hockey is taking checking out of Peewees. The overall proposal is to increase the allowable body contact beginning at Mites and progress through Bantam when full, legal body checking would begin in games. As an example, the American Developmental Model (ADM) Red, White & Blue Hockey at 8U introduces the cross-ice environment to increase traffic and congestion and thus the associated natural body contact through simply reducing space.
The proposal would then increase the allowable body contact as player’s progress through Squirts and Peewees. Competing at the puck, angling to gain possession or stop an offensive attack are examples at these levels. An important objective of this proposal is to eliminate the “Big Hit” in Peewees where players ignore the puck and try to ‘blow up’ an opponent.
Though not allowed in games, coaches will be asked to introduce and teach full body checking techniques in every practice during the two Peewee years. We believe this to be a better solution than what we often times see today as a single weekend “introduction to checking” clinic. The proposal is to provide players two years to acquire the necessary checking skills in a safer environment.
WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
You may check out the body-checking rule change proposal by Kevin McLaughlin, USAH Senior Director of Hockey Development and the other is by Brian Burke. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/adm-semin ... ago---2010
WHEN WILL WE KNOW & WHEN WOULD IT TAKE EFFECT IF PASSED?
USA Hockey’s Board of Director’s, Council’s, Committee’s & Affiliate President’s will be discussing all playing rule proposals at their Winter Meeting in mid-January, 2011. The USA Hockey Board of Directors will vote on the proposal in June 2011. If passed, the change would take effect for the fall 2011-2012 season.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE SPRING OF 2011 AT U12?
No change to spring 2011 hockey. The 2011 spring season will be played under the current rules & format since the proposal will not be voted on until June 2011.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEEWEES GOING INTO THEIR SECOND YEAR?
Due to the nature of the two-year hockey levels, second year Peewees will continue to learn proper checking during their training sessions so they can better apply them in 14U Bantam games
Q&A from USAH on body checking in pee-wees
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
TriedThat2
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:33 am
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
I am neither for or against the body checking. But I have watched many peewee and U12 hockey games sometimes back to back.
In Minnesota, girls can tryout for the peewee teams. Because girls can play youth hockey, those that play peewee hockey almost always jump to high school level after their peewee year. Why? They have adjusted to a higher speed or movement of the puck because physical checking speeds up the play. It is easier for a player to be checked with physical checking in play.
In U12 there is no checking and the game is slower and often decided by one or two girls that can skate and handle a puck fast enough that they can not be checked by "proper checking". In U12, because of the lack of physical checking, the slower player is often reaching or diving to recover. Most injury timeouts in U12 are triggered by "stick work and tripping (often with the knee extended or the defensive player diving at the legs of the forward from behind)".
So I would make the following points:
1. Eliminating physical checking does not eliminate injuries and can in fact create more serious injuries. That is why physical checking is part of the game. Before any rule change is made somebody should have determined that eliminating physical checking at the peewee level will reduce injuries at the peewee and bantam levels. Has that happened? If so how valid is the result?
2. Eliminating physical checking will slow down player development. The peewee game will be slower as kids hang on to the puck longer. The peewee level of play will start to emulate U12 girls.
3. In Minnesota (but not in USA hockey), there is a secondary impact on player development because players who have difficulty with the physical side of the game will not encounter that until bantams. Will they be hurt worst especially when the average first year kid will be playing bantams against kids who have had a year or more experience checking at the bantam level?
4. It is less dangerous for the kid to first experience physical checking at a younger age and then deciding on playing the sport. The law of physics is Force=mass X acceleration. Smaller mass (younger kids), slower play (then bantams) equals less force. Can't legislate physics.
4. Smaller associations survive often by moving players up levels to adjust numbers on teams. Has anybody thought about how this rule will effect smaller associations in Minnesota?
5. My instincts say that USA Hockey is concerned about checking at the peewee level because the AAA hockey maybe getting more competitive especially at the peewee major level. If this is so, why should it apply to Minnesota association based hockey?
USA Hockey has made decisions in the past that are not the best fit for Minnesota hockey. The one thing this rule does is eliminate fear of out of state peewee association based teams operating under USA hockey rules of one year per level of having to play a physical game with older kids when they play in Minnesota.
In Minnesota, girls can tryout for the peewee teams. Because girls can play youth hockey, those that play peewee hockey almost always jump to high school level after their peewee year. Why? They have adjusted to a higher speed or movement of the puck because physical checking speeds up the play. It is easier for a player to be checked with physical checking in play.
In U12 there is no checking and the game is slower and often decided by one or two girls that can skate and handle a puck fast enough that they can not be checked by "proper checking". In U12, because of the lack of physical checking, the slower player is often reaching or diving to recover. Most injury timeouts in U12 are triggered by "stick work and tripping (often with the knee extended or the defensive player diving at the legs of the forward from behind)".
So I would make the following points:
1. Eliminating physical checking does not eliminate injuries and can in fact create more serious injuries. That is why physical checking is part of the game. Before any rule change is made somebody should have determined that eliminating physical checking at the peewee level will reduce injuries at the peewee and bantam levels. Has that happened? If so how valid is the result?
2. Eliminating physical checking will slow down player development. The peewee game will be slower as kids hang on to the puck longer. The peewee level of play will start to emulate U12 girls.
3. In Minnesota (but not in USA hockey), there is a secondary impact on player development because players who have difficulty with the physical side of the game will not encounter that until bantams. Will they be hurt worst especially when the average first year kid will be playing bantams against kids who have had a year or more experience checking at the bantam level?
4. It is less dangerous for the kid to first experience physical checking at a younger age and then deciding on playing the sport. The law of physics is Force=mass X acceleration. Smaller mass (younger kids), slower play (then bantams) equals less force. Can't legislate physics.
4. Smaller associations survive often by moving players up levels to adjust numbers on teams. Has anybody thought about how this rule will effect smaller associations in Minnesota?
5. My instincts say that USA Hockey is concerned about checking at the peewee level because the AAA hockey maybe getting more competitive especially at the peewee major level. If this is so, why should it apply to Minnesota association based hockey?
USA Hockey has made decisions in the past that are not the best fit for Minnesota hockey. The one thing this rule does is eliminate fear of out of state peewee association based teams operating under USA hockey rules of one year per level of having to play a physical game with older kids when they play in Minnesota.
-
TellItHowItIs
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:02 pm
Our Squirt and Peewee coaches need to spend more time on teaching Angling, eliminating space, giving and recieving a check. all will then be fine. Ask your kid if "how do you approach the puck, how do you position your body, etc. Most will say they have never been taught anything. Coaches need to TEACH.
-
Let 'Em Play
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:32 am
Not going to waste 17 pages quoting the drivel spewed forth by USA Hockey (see above). What a load of crap. I wonder if they just sit around thinking “hmm, what can we meddle with today…that whole age cut-off thing didn’t work out, so let’s find something else to fix, even though it’s not broken.” Hello! We can take care of ourselves and our children, we do not need to be “big brothered” by USA Hockey on issues like this. My son is a Peewee. He also plays football, lacrosse and baseball. They wear helmets in each of those sports for the same obvious reason they wear them in hockey – to prevent head injuries. In football, they get tackled. There have been changes in the NFL with regard to hits to the helmet – but they didn’t say “um, you guys can’t tackle anymore, hey, here’s some flags to put around your waist – it’s for everyone’s protection...some of you are bigger than others you know.” Lacrosse, which is the outdoor summer equivalent to hockey, is a very physical game. If you hit someone in the head or trip them, or whatever the case may be, you get a penalty, likely thirty seconds to one minute in length. USA Lacrosse doesn’t say “listen guys, we’ve decided you can’t check or slash anymore, and no more metal crosses, please use something softer...you know, because you don’t wear a ton of padding and we need to keep you boys bruise free.” In fact, you are allowed to slash (for lack of a better word) your opponent up to three times in one spot without a penalty. Then you slash him somewhere else once, and go back to the previous spot and it’s all good. Kids at my son’s level of baseball are pitching with some heat and starting to throw curve balls. Sometimes kids get hit in the head. Last I checked, they didn’t make them start pitching underhand for the good of the game. Frankly, I love a physical hockey game (for that matter a physical lacrosse game is also amazing, and the sound of shoulder pads hitting shoulder pads in football…music to my ears), in fact, I’d like to see girls hockey allow checking. I bet those games would be awesome.
Seems to me that some of the kids taking the tough hits should learn to skate with their heads up, maybe take it upon themselves to go to some stickhandling clinics or work on that skill in their basement for free. Why should the kids who are capable of playing the game get the physical aspect taken away because others are less able to function within the game. My son stickhandles in our basement every day, and he goes to Breakfast Club at the Made. We see tons of kids, boys and girls, at Breakfast Club at the crack of dawn, working to become better stickhandlers so they can keep their heads up and see the ice. (And please, don’t turn this into a MM debate, this is just what our son, and others, do to improve. You can also accomplish a lot for free in your basement.)
Well, that’s my 17 pages… I’ve read the pros and cons by other posters about when/how to properly teach this aspect of the game. It does need to be taught, and taught correctly, whether by association coaches, summer hockey coaches or in camps, there are many options for proper education. My point is that USA Hockey really needs to stop big brothering us. Balance districts, ensure the proper equipment is required, keep pedophiles off the ice and out of the locker rooms – but once they get on the ice, let the kids play.
Seems to me that some of the kids taking the tough hits should learn to skate with their heads up, maybe take it upon themselves to go to some stickhandling clinics or work on that skill in their basement for free. Why should the kids who are capable of playing the game get the physical aspect taken away because others are less able to function within the game. My son stickhandles in our basement every day, and he goes to Breakfast Club at the Made. We see tons of kids, boys and girls, at Breakfast Club at the crack of dawn, working to become better stickhandlers so they can keep their heads up and see the ice. (And please, don’t turn this into a MM debate, this is just what our son, and others, do to improve. You can also accomplish a lot for free in your basement.)
Well, that’s my 17 pages… I’ve read the pros and cons by other posters about when/how to properly teach this aspect of the game. It does need to be taught, and taught correctly, whether by association coaches, summer hockey coaches or in camps, there are many options for proper education. My point is that USA Hockey really needs to stop big brothering us. Balance districts, ensure the proper equipment is required, keep pedophiles off the ice and out of the locker rooms – but once they get on the ice, let the kids play.
The board members that I have spoken with are 100% behind this.TriedThat2 wrote:Mark,
I think I know your thought process on this, but where are the other DD's and Board members with this proposal?
The DD's I have not heard from.
I am not against modifying the checking because of
1. reduce injuries
2. enhance player development
BUT
sooner or later most of these kids are going to get into a checking game
AND
body contact is allowed but not checking, how are the refs going to do this consistently AND how is the training going to be handled AND paid for.
And is the basis of their 'study' scientific...
or the others.
I have heard eggs are bad for you, no its butter, etc.....
-
PanthersIn2011
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am
-
JoltDelivered
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am
Would this rule change affect AAA winter hockey?
I ask because every major shift needs a catalyst for it to reach it's tipping point, and the major shift that is staring Minnesota Hockey right straight in the eyeball is the potential explosion of AAA WINTER hockey.
If I were a AAA winter hockey club looking to gain an edge in player recruitment, this would be the first place I start.
Something like: While your pee wee peers are playing in Minnesota Hockey non-checking leagues, you can leave your association and join AAA hockey. The Result: When you hit bantams, you'll be ahead of the curve in terms of development and your association-based peers will be playing catch-up.
Minnesota Hockey needs to be careful here of unintended consequences.
I ask because every major shift needs a catalyst for it to reach it's tipping point, and the major shift that is staring Minnesota Hockey right straight in the eyeball is the potential explosion of AAA WINTER hockey.
If I were a AAA winter hockey club looking to gain an edge in player recruitment, this would be the first place I start.
Something like: While your pee wee peers are playing in Minnesota Hockey non-checking leagues, you can leave your association and join AAA hockey. The Result: When you hit bantams, you'll be ahead of the curve in terms of development and your association-based peers will be playing catch-up.
Minnesota Hockey needs to be careful here of unintended consequences.
Last edited by JoltDelivered on Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I find tinsel distracting"
No public mention of declining numbers and revenue?
I still feel recruiting and growing numbers is the best solution. Starting no checking leagues sounds like a decent idea too. Recruiting can provide the numbers to offer such XL type, no checking, leagues. Grow revenue, increase numbers and offer checking or no checking PeeWee options for the kids. I don't like the idea, think it's a mistake, but if member families are requesting it improve your offerings and give it to them.
I still feel recruiting and growing numbers is the best solution. Starting no checking leagues sounds like a decent idea too. Recruiting can provide the numbers to offer such XL type, no checking, leagues. Grow revenue, increase numbers and offer checking or no checking PeeWee options for the kids. I don't like the idea, think it's a mistake, but if member families are requesting it improve your offerings and give it to them.
This is not a Minnesota Hockey thing.JoltDelivered wrote:Would this rule change affect AAA winter hockey?
I ask because every major shift needs a catalyst for it to reach it's tipping point, and the major shift that is staring Minnesota Hockey right straight in the eyeball is the potential explosion of AAA WINTER hockey.
If I were a AAA winter hockey club looking to gain an edge in player recruitment, this would be the first place I start.
Something like: While your pee wee peers are playing in Minnesota Hockey non-checking leagues, you can leave your association and join AAA hockey. The Result: When you hit bantams, you'll be ahead of the curve in terms of development and your association-based peers will be playing catch-up.
Minnesota Hockey needs to be careful here of unintended consequences.
It is USAH and will effect ALL USAH sanctioned teams, which are almost all winter teams.
Well, I suppose you could play it in a manor, but I think arenas work better for most people. Usually cost less too.elliott70 wrote:play the game in the correct manor
Not my error...
USAH personnel get paid....
if you or I misspell on here that is one thing, but 'manor'
I apologize for picking on 'them', but geez
-
Deep Breath
-
Wildcathcky
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:19 am
I believe Jolt's point is that the AAA teams may look to expand into the winter and play without sanctioning from MN/USA hockey. The summer AAA teams are not sanctioned by either organization and operate so seems feasible. Obviously, creating a AAA winter league would be a large undertaking and there are several obstacles, but this may be the final straw that would spur someone into action.elliott70 wrote:This is not a Minnesota Hockey thing.JoltDelivered wrote:Would this rule change affect AAA winter hockey?
I ask because every major shift needs a catalyst for it to reach it's tipping point, and the major shift that is staring Minnesota Hockey right straight in the eyeball is the potential explosion of AAA WINTER hockey.
If I were a AAA winter hockey club looking to gain an edge in player recruitment, this would be the first place I start.
Something like: While your pee wee peers are playing in Minnesota Hockey non-checking leagues, you can leave your association and join AAA hockey. The Result: When you hit bantams, you'll be ahead of the curve in terms of development and your association-based peers will be playing catch-up.
Minnesota Hockey needs to be careful here of unintended consequences.
It is USAH and will effect ALL USAH sanctioned teams, which are almost all winter teams.
-
hockeygirl2
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:21 pm
Does anyone know if there was any consideration given to the AAA summer leagues? What I mean is that I can follow the logic that USAH is using (not saying I necessarily agree with it) if all we were talking about was winter hockey. I know that that is all USAH can control, but it is a little like looking at the problem in a vacuum.
Fact is, many, many of the kids play summer AAA hockey as well, and the 2000's get to start checking July 1 of this year (many of which will still be 2nd year squirts next year). The summer before the 2000's begin their first year of PW's, they can check for the entire summer. For those 2000 birth year kids playing summer hockey, they will have 1 1/2 summers under their belt of checking. They then will have two more full summers under their belt of checking before even starting Bantams. These kids are being taught how to check in practices and games in teh summer, and then are taught how to have "body contact" only in Pw's. (whatever the difference between body contact and checking would mean to a child).
While i understand that the USAH can't control it, it also can't ignore the fact that a large portion of the kids are being taught to check in the summer. This is a switch the kids are supposed to turn on and off once they even learn the difference between checking and body contact? It then once again becomes an enforcement issue with the referees. So a kid who is only expecting a "body contact" gets "checked" instead--doesn't this open him/her up to significant injuries to?
I think referees having a clear directive that any hits to the head, or any 2/10 checking from behind is an automatic ejection, with them calling it tightly, will have a much, much larger positive impact than simply saying you guys can't really hit each other until you get really big.
Fact is, many, many of the kids play summer AAA hockey as well, and the 2000's get to start checking July 1 of this year (many of which will still be 2nd year squirts next year). The summer before the 2000's begin their first year of PW's, they can check for the entire summer. For those 2000 birth year kids playing summer hockey, they will have 1 1/2 summers under their belt of checking. They then will have two more full summers under their belt of checking before even starting Bantams. These kids are being taught how to check in practices and games in teh summer, and then are taught how to have "body contact" only in Pw's. (whatever the difference between body contact and checking would mean to a child).
While i understand that the USAH can't control it, it also can't ignore the fact that a large portion of the kids are being taught to check in the summer. This is a switch the kids are supposed to turn on and off once they even learn the difference between checking and body contact? It then once again becomes an enforcement issue with the referees. So a kid who is only expecting a "body contact" gets "checked" instead--doesn't this open him/her up to significant injuries to?
I think referees having a clear directive that any hits to the head, or any 2/10 checking from behind is an automatic ejection, with them calling it tightly, will have a much, much larger positive impact than simply saying you guys can't really hit each other until you get really big.
-
jBlaze3000
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Just wait until a ref gets one wrong and ejects little Johnny from the championship game for a legal hit.hockeygirl2 wrote:I think referees having a clear directive that any hits to the head, or any 2/10 checking from behind is an automatic ejection, with them calling it tightly, will have a much, much larger positive impact than simply saying you guys can't really hit each other until you get really big.
I would have liked to see a reference to "the number of recent studies" because I've seen 2 and neither is anywhere near the 4:1 ratio mentioned. I even posted one published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which had it at 3:1 if you included supermites, squirts, peewees, bantams, and midgets.
At a game last night I was talking about this to the referees between the jv and varsity games, they say they're probably done with youth hockey if this passes because this is just pure judgement and will only lead to benches and parents getting worse. One proposed a novel idea I thought; any penalty with head contact is a double minor, so a high stick or rough with head contact is 2 penalties instead of one.
At a game last night I was talking about this to the referees between the jv and varsity games, they say they're probably done with youth hockey if this passes because this is just pure judgement and will only lead to benches and parents getting worse. One proposed a novel idea I thought; any penalty with head contact is a double minor, so a high stick or rough with head contact is 2 penalties instead of one.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
I like the idea to double penalties if the head is involved. Like speeding through a construction site.goldy313 wrote:At a game last night I was talking about this to the referees between the jv and varsity games, they say they're probably done with youth hockey if this passes because this is just pure judgement and will only lead to benches and parents getting worse. One proposed a novel idea I thought; any penalty with head contact is a double minor, so a high stick or rough with head contact is 2 penalties instead of one.
As for the officials, it won't be that bad. Any time they see the arms swinging to enhance a check it will be a minor. If they just keep skating and use the body to make a play involving the puck it won't be. A drop to throw a shoulder will be called if they do it and admire their work. Lean a shoulder over and continue to play the puck and it won't be.
Be kind. Rewind.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
Brian Burke presentation is good, but I gave up after 10 minutes of the hour because the audio quality is so bad. He is talking loud enough for the room, but not loud enough for the mic.
I'm on the Kevin McLaughlin presentation now. "Go to most Squirt game...we want to see more contact."
Okay, you gotta watch this one. Go to the 18 minute mark of McLaughlin's presentation and he shows examples of legal and illegal hits under the proposed rule. #91 is blowing kids up all over the ice! Video from Pee Wee nationals. "I bet his coach loves him!" An impressive display.
On one hand it is easy to say this will be missed, but on the other they are forcing #91 to 'play with a purpose' and go at these kids just as hard to win the puck on his stick, not just to knock heads so someone else can get it. Must see TV!
I'm on the Kevin McLaughlin presentation now. "Go to most Squirt game...we want to see more contact."
Okay, you gotta watch this one. Go to the 18 minute mark of McLaughlin's presentation and he shows examples of legal and illegal hits under the proposed rule. #91 is blowing kids up all over the ice! Video from Pee Wee nationals. "I bet his coach loves him!" An impressive display.
On one hand it is easy to say this will be missed, but on the other they are forcing #91 to 'play with a purpose' and go at these kids just as hard to win the puck on his stick, not just to knock heads so someone else can get it. Must see TV!
Be kind. Rewind.
Except that the majority of 'summer' AAA teams outside of Minnesota are not going to be checking because they are working under their USAH Tier 1 charters. How will anyone be able to go to Canada at any point in the year and compete, maybe Canada isn't far behind with a country-wide no-check rule of their own?hockeygirl2 wrote:Does anyone know if there was any consideration given to the AAA summer leagues? What I mean is that I can follow the logic that USAH is using (not saying I necessarily agree with it) if all we were talking about was winter hockey. I know that that is all USAH can control, but it is a little like looking at the problem in a vacuum.
Fact is, many, many of the kids play summer AAA hockey as well, and the 2000's get to start checking July 1 of this year (many of which will still be 2nd year squirts next year). The summer before the 2000's begin their first year of PW's, they can check for the entire summer. For those 2000 birth year kids playing summer hockey, they will have 1 1/2 summers under their belt of checking. They then will have two more full summers under their belt of checking before even starting Bantams. These kids are being taught how to check in practices and games in teh summer, and then are taught how to have "body contact" only in Pw's. (whatever the difference between body contact and checking would mean to a child).
While i understand that the USAH can't control it, it also can't ignore the fact that a large portion of the kids are being taught to check in the summer. This is a switch the kids are supposed to turn on and off once they even learn the difference between checking and body contact? It then once again becomes an enforcement issue with the referees. So a kid who is only expecting a "body contact" gets "checked" instead--doesn't this open him/her up to significant injuries to?
I think referees having a clear directive that any hits to the head, or any 2/10 checking from behind is an automatic ejection, with them calling it tightly, will have a much, much larger positive impact than simply saying you guys can't really hit each other until you get really big.
One question, will a Tier 1 peewee team be allowed to enter non-USAH hockey sanctioned tournaments that allow checking? If so Mr. McBain and Showcase hockey stand to make a fortune.
-
Deep Breath
Like a wrote before, if this asenine rule passes, the peewee choice league at MM is going to triple in size. Parents will be lined up around the corner to get their sons 2 full years of checking before they go to bantams.
Also, in reference to the refs not wanting to deal with the new rule, I agree completely. It's awful now, the abuse these people take from parents, coaches, players. Now they will be asked to put even more discretion into their calls "was that a check?", "was that just a rub out?", "was he swinging his arms?". What a joke. Make these kids play 'ponytail' hockey for the first 8+ years of organized hockey is ridiculous. Hope the powers that be that run youth football don't get any crazy ideas like "you know, some of these kids are bigger than others. We shouldn't allow tackling until they are all 13 or 14 years old, because that will really allow the game to grow."
Also, in reference to the refs not wanting to deal with the new rule, I agree completely. It's awful now, the abuse these people take from parents, coaches, players. Now they will be asked to put even more discretion into their calls "was that a check?", "was that just a rub out?", "was he swinging his arms?". What a joke. Make these kids play 'ponytail' hockey for the first 8+ years of organized hockey is ridiculous. Hope the powers that be that run youth football don't get any crazy ideas like "you know, some of these kids are bigger than others. We shouldn't allow tackling until they are all 13 or 14 years old, because that will really allow the game to grow."