For or agianst NO CHECKING IN PEEWEES poll
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
No need to be insulting, we get the question and the policy. We do not like it (at least a 92.3% of us as of the time I type this).spin-o-rama wrote:I bet if the poll title was changed to "Support more contact in squirts and checking taught in all Peewee practices," the voting would be reversed.
You're voting No, but your comments say Yes.
It seems irregardless a very slight minority is bent on having this happen and if we don't agree, we are told we just don't understand.
Maybe we just disagree.
-
hockeyfan74
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 1:02 pm
I oppose no checking in Pee-wee's for multiple reasons. I have stated them over and over in other threads. Here are a couple:
It will increase injuries at bantams - players are way to fast and strong to start hitting at Bantams. When kids finally get their chance to hit they want to make it worth it. In my opinion it would be way to dangerous to give them their first chance at bantams.
Players won't learn to keep their heads up or have to learn to pass until bantams. No need to - don't have to worry about getting hit. We played a few teams at the pee-wee level this year that had some players that would have absolutely dominated the games, but were effectively neutralized by good body checks.
As stated previously some kids will only have one year of checking before playing Varsity Hockey and in some case some may have none. Think of some 99's right now that are in 6th grade and playing squirts - I know a few. That means they play pee-wees in 7th and 8th grade and if they are good enough could play high school hockey as a 9th grader with-out ever checking - ouch.
The only positive I can see is it will keep more kids playing hockey for two more years which ultimately means more MONEY for USA Hockey.
I think we should either start teaching squirts to check and then start checking at pee-wees or start checking at squirts so when they get to pee-wees it is no big deal.
The first step is education. Educate the players, parents and coaches and how to properly check and take a check. I worked really hard with my son who is a first year pee-wee since he has been a mite on how to angle and skate through the hands. I also worked with him on how to get low and strong along the boards and how to skate through a check. I told him when the season started that his game shouldn't change at all. The only difference is he can get more of the body when he goes through the hands, but the objective is the same - separate the player from the puck not the players head from his shoulders. He isn't lighting up any scoreboards but he also has had no issues with the transition from squirts to pee-wees.
It will increase injuries at bantams - players are way to fast and strong to start hitting at Bantams. When kids finally get their chance to hit they want to make it worth it. In my opinion it would be way to dangerous to give them their first chance at bantams.
Players won't learn to keep their heads up or have to learn to pass until bantams. No need to - don't have to worry about getting hit. We played a few teams at the pee-wee level this year that had some players that would have absolutely dominated the games, but were effectively neutralized by good body checks.
As stated previously some kids will only have one year of checking before playing Varsity Hockey and in some case some may have none. Think of some 99's right now that are in 6th grade and playing squirts - I know a few. That means they play pee-wees in 7th and 8th grade and if they are good enough could play high school hockey as a 9th grader with-out ever checking - ouch.
The only positive I can see is it will keep more kids playing hockey for two more years which ultimately means more MONEY for USA Hockey.
I think we should either start teaching squirts to check and then start checking at pee-wees or start checking at squirts so when they get to pee-wees it is no big deal.
The first step is education. Educate the players, parents and coaches and how to properly check and take a check. I worked really hard with my son who is a first year pee-wee since he has been a mite on how to angle and skate through the hands. I also worked with him on how to get low and strong along the boards and how to skate through a check. I told him when the season started that his game shouldn't change at all. The only difference is he can get more of the body when he goes through the hands, but the objective is the same - separate the player from the puck not the players head from his shoulders. He isn't lighting up any scoreboards but he also has had no issues with the transition from squirts to pee-wees.
If you poll 2nd year squirts, they would vote 95% for checking at Pee Wees. If you poll 1st year Pee Wees, I bet the number drops below 50%. I have watched many kids change their mind after taking stupid hits from the kids who are just out to make the highlight hit.
The truly skilled players would rather have the physical game without the blow up hits. The kids still learning, who love the game, dont need the fear factor.
Lastly, I have spoken to 4 coaches in the state who themselves, played Div. 1 hockey. All 4 support the proposed checking rules. More physical play at Squirts, teach checking at Pee Wees, institute checking at Bantams. Maybe that is a small sample size, but it seems interesting to me.
The truly skilled players would rather have the physical game without the blow up hits. The kids still learning, who love the game, dont need the fear factor.
Lastly, I have spoken to 4 coaches in the state who themselves, played Div. 1 hockey. All 4 support the proposed checking rules. More physical play at Squirts, teach checking at Pee Wees, institute checking at Bantams. Maybe that is a small sample size, but it seems interesting to me.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
No, it just has got to the point now where I have to go through and remove comments that you just made becasue they do not address teh question, but rather are commenting on what other people are thinking.O-townClown wrote:Limit them to what, those in agreement with you?!elliott70 wrote:Please limit your comments - take additional ones to another thread.
I would like to just copy this and give it to the MH board...
Does your comment help me and the MH board?
No.
It just adds paper to what I am trying to do....
Get opinions from people on the question asked...
Go back and read the last few posts...
Do they address the question...
Four coaches say this or that....
Not interested in second hand commetns, we (me and others) are getting those direcdtly form coaches...
What I am lookning for is...
I think peewees should be able to check in games because... based on my experiences as a coach, player, parent etcc.
OR
I don't think peewees should check in games etc...
It is not complicated and there is no hidden agenda on my part.
I have an opinion and it is that this will be difficult to implement on everyone. That the study is not as accurate as some would like to think.
Soem very astute people would like to see a better job of studying and looking at what other options are available. the things you see as positive are things most in norhtern MN already do.
But what I think is not what I want here.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
I oppose the rule change and support checking at the peewee level.
I also think contact at the squirt level should be taught and allowed i.e hand to hand checking, rubbing off the puck, etc., but no full contact checking.
I believe that if you wait until bantams, where the size and speed of the game is greater, the consequences will be greater.
I also think contact at the squirt level should be taught and allowed i.e hand to hand checking, rubbing off the puck, etc., but no full contact checking.
I believe that if you wait until bantams, where the size and speed of the game is greater, the consequences will be greater.
-
hockey_is_a_choice
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:48 am
I oppose removing checking from peewee hockey. Checking is part of the game. USAHockey and its affiliates need to do a better job training and encouraging referees to call checking from behind, cross checking, boarding, and charging penalties. Perhaps those penalties should be 5 minute penalties, so a checking from behind call would mean a 5 and a 10-minute penalty.
I am against the removal of checking from the peewee level for many of the same reasons already stated.
Frederick61 posted many good points on the subject on another thread. Thought it would be good to add to this thread.
Frederick61 posted many good points on the subject on another thread. Thought it would be good to add to this thread.
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.
-
3GoonsWest
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:37 am
Is there anyone out there that thinks this is ever going to come to an end? Every one of these "improvements" to the game is rolled out under the guise of some kind of study.
If the checking rule is changed to start at the bantam level, injuries at the bantam level are going to increase. At that point there will be some genius that conducts another study. Shockingly, said genius will conclude that injuries have increased and demand something be done to address the problem.
At this point the hockey moms will rally, throw out a couple of ex-NHLer's names that are in agreement and low and behold, another rule change. It will be similar to the 'fair play points' rule rolled out by a hockey mom who just happens to be a doctor- at Mayo, no less. How has this helped the game?
Let's just cut to the chase and have the helmet manufacturers make faux ponytails standard and build them right in.
I would like to challenge all of the movers and shakers on the rules committee to head to the rink this weekend. Find some Mite and Squirt games and watch them. You are bound to see 2 kids collide at full speed because they both had their heads down. What you will also see is both of them pop right back up.
Children are taught fear. How about if we spend more time teaching them how to play the game correctly and less time teaching them to be afraid.[/img][/list]
If the checking rule is changed to start at the bantam level, injuries at the bantam level are going to increase. At that point there will be some genius that conducts another study. Shockingly, said genius will conclude that injuries have increased and demand something be done to address the problem.
At this point the hockey moms will rally, throw out a couple of ex-NHLer's names that are in agreement and low and behold, another rule change. It will be similar to the 'fair play points' rule rolled out by a hockey mom who just happens to be a doctor- at Mayo, no less. How has this helped the game?
Let's just cut to the chase and have the helmet manufacturers make faux ponytails standard and build them right in.
I would like to challenge all of the movers and shakers on the rules committee to head to the rink this weekend. Find some Mite and Squirt games and watch them. You are bound to see 2 kids collide at full speed because they both had their heads down. What you will also see is both of them pop right back up.
Children are taught fear. How about if we spend more time teaching them how to play the game correctly and less time teaching them to be afraid.[/img][/list]
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
I oppose the change at this point in time.
I am open to the idea if it is the result of a several thorough studies by independent evaluators, and clearly shows that eliminating peewee checking will reduce the number of injuries. These findings must then be presented to the public in an open manner subject to serious scrutiny.
In the meantime, teaching kids how to check properly and enforcing existing rules will lower injury rates far more effectively than imposing sweeping changes from on high.
I am open to the idea if it is the result of a several thorough studies by independent evaluators, and clearly shows that eliminating peewee checking will reduce the number of injuries. These findings must then be presented to the public in an open manner subject to serious scrutiny.
In the meantime, teaching kids how to check properly and enforcing existing rules will lower injury rates far more effectively than imposing sweeping changes from on high.
I oppose the rule change. Seems like a no-brainer to me to teach squirts the proper techniques of checking,( age appropriate of course-i.e. rubbing out, angling etc.) in practices to prepare them better for peewees. Most of the kids at this level are the same size and weight.
Checking is a fundamental part of the game. Don't be afraid of it, embrace it. Teach it properly in incremental stages throughout youth and enforce the rules we already have vigorously. Teach the coaches at the squirt level ( majority Dads ) what is expected of them.
Keep up the good work you're doing for Mn. Hockey Mark. The brainiacs at USAH could learn a valuble lesson from you, ask the people first to see what we think before moving forward with radical rule changes that impact our game. We out here in hockeyland aren't as inept as they think and can manage just fine. JMO
Checking is a fundamental part of the game. Don't be afraid of it, embrace it. Teach it properly in incremental stages throughout youth and enforce the rules we already have vigorously. Teach the coaches at the squirt level ( majority Dads ) what is expected of them.
Keep up the good work you're doing for Mn. Hockey Mark. The brainiacs at USAH could learn a valuble lesson from you, ask the people first to see what we think before moving forward with radical rule changes that impact our game. We out here in hockeyland aren't as inept as they think and can manage just fine. JMO
-
Thunderstruck
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:43 pm
I believe we need to leave the checking in Pee Wee hockey, and actually introduce checking at the squirt levels when kids are more flexible and resilient(sp. ??). Waiting until Bantams is a bad idea in that the difference between a second year kid who has gone through puberty, maybe has been lifting weights and is very athletic could be up against a kid who is first year, small for his size, underdeveloped, and has never really taken or given a check in an intense game situation. I think most would agree that it would have been a milder collision in Pee Wees or even Squirts and the two of them at the earlier ages would have learned how to properly take and give checks, so that by the time they hit Bantams it is something they have done several times and know how to do it. Also, to take it out makes Pee Wees a glorified Squirt game in which some of the better players really do not learn to keep their head up until they get checked off the puck a few times(or maybe my boys were just more hard headed than others) not experiencing that until Bantams now you are really asking for injury. Imagine the earlier scenerio at that point. Anyway these are just some of the reasons to leave checking in Pee Wee hockey and possibly start teaching it in squirts.
5
Mark E
-I think Minnesota Hockey should consider studies done by Hockey Canada where the province of Quebec does not check until Bantams and the rest of Canada does. Quebec somehow still churns out player after player somehow.
-2 things rule in pee wee's, the kid that can flat out just outskate everyone (see "pitlick" in threads regarding pee wee's during 08/09 and 09/10) and kids that are the first to puberty (see Elk River's resurgence in D10 hockey), the problem is, these traits do carry over to Bantams, where some kids are 6-2 and others are not, if you're not, well then you better be able to skate and have a heart.
-A recommendation I might have is to install the rule in Minnesota with a catch, consider making "A" level Pee Wee a checking league as these are for the most part, 90% of the best players in the state at their age group (taking into the account the 10% that are playing B hockey because of assocaition classification choice). Make "B" level Pee Wee's and below non-checking. Why? B level Pee Wee's are B level because they can't do one of the following 1-skate that well 2-stick skillz 3-they're just tiny. This option is at least worth considering I would think.
If anyone dislikes my recommendation, no biggie, just have a recommendation yourself, a course of action, and not just a whining moment.
good luck and thank you as always for at least considering the opinions of the board faithful.
-I think Minnesota Hockey should consider studies done by Hockey Canada where the province of Quebec does not check until Bantams and the rest of Canada does. Quebec somehow still churns out player after player somehow.
-2 things rule in pee wee's, the kid that can flat out just outskate everyone (see "pitlick" in threads regarding pee wee's during 08/09 and 09/10) and kids that are the first to puberty (see Elk River's resurgence in D10 hockey), the problem is, these traits do carry over to Bantams, where some kids are 6-2 and others are not, if you're not, well then you better be able to skate and have a heart.
-A recommendation I might have is to install the rule in Minnesota with a catch, consider making "A" level Pee Wee a checking league as these are for the most part, 90% of the best players in the state at their age group (taking into the account the 10% that are playing B hockey because of assocaition classification choice). Make "B" level Pee Wee's and below non-checking. Why? B level Pee Wee's are B level because they can't do one of the following 1-skate that well 2-stick skillz 3-they're just tiny. This option is at least worth considering I would think.
If anyone dislikes my recommendation, no biggie, just have a recommendation yourself, a course of action, and not just a whining moment.
good luck and thank you as always for at least considering the opinions of the board faithful.
New England Prep School Hockey Recruiter