Minnesota Hockey board meeting...

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:09 pm

Just lost a post to the cyberdemons. Sorry. That really is a pain that seems to be getting worse.

Anyway, your points are valid. Big difference between saying there is no study (which was the post) and saying the study isn't perfect.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:19 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:
1. but why so passionate about what we're doing with our kids.
2. O name drops a half dozen guys with NHL experience to prove that his opinion is the correct one, and
3. since someone doesn't believe what he believes they must be ignorant or misinformed.
4. The only argument that makes any sense in my head would be that 12 year old boys aren't mature enough to make good decisions about contact.
5. If that's the case, then we're going to need to wait until 16 or 18 or 21 before their mental capacity is capable of thinking in that manner.

1. I don't care what Minnesota does. Knock yourself out.
2. I have never said my opinion is the right one.
3. No, the ignorant and misinformed people are ignorant and misinformed. I have no problem with guys that don't agree, and I've even called some for their thoughts. (Goldy just had an example of an informed disagreement; no ignorance there.)
4. So retention isn't a good argument? "The broader the base the higher the peak." Okay. We disagree.
5. No. Age 13/14 is older than 12 and it is the current plan.

PanthersIn2011 · Post by **PanthersIn2011** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:27 pm

O-townClown wrote:It's just bothersome that the people that really know nothing about it hide behind statements like "they don't know what they're talking about" when the folks that are saying these things actually do.

This would be the same organization that told us that blue pucks would have a dramatic impact on skill level of our squirts?

That was a cheap shot. And I really do not question the intentions of the people involved.

But the point is that, no matter how informed and expert their opinions are, it is completely plausible that they are wrong. Just like they were with the blue pucks.

Except being wrong this time could be catastrophic. I keep missing the point in all of these studies where it describes how Bantams are going to be safer by eliminating checking at PW. What is being done to make the game safer at the upper levels?

It isn't a solution.

P.S. For years, a lot of "uninformed neanderthals" have been saying that modern equipment is contributing to the injury problem in the sport. They clearly took too many to the head themselves. So I have to laugh when I hear Keith Jones say during NHL All-Star coverage that the league is looking into the connection between shoulder & elbow pads and concussions. Now that Bettman is on the case, I'm sure some other study will conclude that a hard molded piece of plastic delivered forcefully to the head is a plausible cause of injury to said head.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:34 pm

Panthers:

I have not seen Squirts play with blue pucks. I would like to. It is so vastly superior for Mites that I'm amazed there is resistance. The pace of the game is much faster because the puck moves around a lot quicker. Passes are more likely to connect and clearing attempts are more likely to make it out of the zone. There's more skating as a result.

Funny thing happened last tournament in my son's game. A wrist shot from the blue line actually landed short of the net and bounced clear over the goaltender!

How many people on this board will have their kids quit hockey if this passes? Honestly, is this really the end of youth hockey like some make it out to be?

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:35 pm

And, as has been pointed out, a head shot is already a penalty and is not checking. Better training of the kids and better enforcement by the refs is the answer.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:43 pm

[quoteIt is so vastly superior for Mites that I'm amazed there is resistance.[/quote]

The last mite game I watched was pretty fast. The puck was black.

[quotePasses are more likely to connect and clearing attempts are more likely to make it out of the zone.[/quote]

Once again, I'm ignorant and misinformed, but in my rock head, without a study to back it, I don't see how a puck that is capable of bouncing over a goal after being fluttered by a mite is "more likely to connect". Again, I have no study on the bounceability of black vs blue pucks to back my statement.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:25 pm

I think the NCAA is taking the right approach and USAH ought to look at what they're doing in acknowledging injuries are an unfortunate part of the game and can't be elinated.

That said the best thing is increased enforcement through officials training, increased awareness of the rules by coaching staffs, and awareness of the signs and symptoms of a concussion by officials, coaches, and parents coupled with a set criteria for return to play.
The NFHS has set up a policy like the one outlined above and the 3 pronged approach is working.

Being for checking or against checking won't stop concussions, nothing will. The studies being used to justify eliminating checking don't, at least in what I've seen, show it also decreases injuries at the level when checking is introduced. If they did that would be a huge justification. At the NCAA level Ohio State and Tennessee are doing remarkable work in the studying of concussions in football, for as much money as USAH takes in it seems reasonable for them to actually comission an unbiased study on concusions before jumping in knee jerk. You could rationally set up a system where Minnesota is allowed to check but Massachusettes isn't, you have big research universities in both states and by only using a few programs in each state gather significant data in just a couple of years.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:05 pm

They clearly took too many to the head themselves. So I have to laugh when I hear Keith Jones say during NHL All-Star coverage that the league is looking into the connection between shoulder & elbow pads and concussions. Now that Bettman is on the case, I'm sure some other study will conclude that a hard molded piece of plastic delivered forcefully to the head is a plausible cause of injury to said head.

It is not the padding itself that causes the injury, but rather the fact that the person who is delivering the hit is better protected, which allows them to deliver a much harder hit without fear of injury. It is reasonable to conclude that harder hits lead to more inujries.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:06 pm

They clearly took too many to the head themselves. So I have to laugh when I hear Keith Jones say during NHL All-Star coverage that the league is looking into the connection between shoulder & elbow pads and concussions. Now that Bettman is on the case, I'm sure some other study will conclude that a hard molded piece of plastic delivered forcefully to the head is a plausible cause of injury to said head.

It is not the padding itself that causes the injury, but rather the fact that the person who is delivering the hit is better protected, which allows them to deliver a much harder hit without fear of injury. It is reasonable to conclude that harder hits lead to more inujries.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:23 pm

OTC - You really don't like the blue pucks do you? They are like a rubber ball. I used them once when they came out and never went back to them. It actually hurts players from a passing standpoint because the pucks bounce so much. Mite are just fine with black pucks - None of the mite kids I have worked with ever had an issue with black pucks.

I don't think kids will quit hockey if the no-checking rule passes but they will look at other options in Minnesota. I know my oldest son who is a first year pee-wee will not go back to his association if it passes. I already asked if he could move up to Bantams and they said no because we don't want peoples feelings hurt if he takes someones spot. Typical answer - Don't teach kids to work hard and earn their spot.

In my opinion if you want to eliminate a good number of concussions - make sure the players are wearing their mouth guards properly. Sit and watch any youth hockey game and watch how many kids have their mouth guards hanging out of their mouth. Yet another example of enforcing the rules. There are so many better options available than taking checking away.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:35 pm

I think blue pucks are great. The biggest difference is the speed of the game because the puck moves around.

It does bounce. So what? The puck bounces all over the place in an NHL game. As for kids not having problems with the black, of course they don't! It sits flat for them.

A valuable skill is to be able to get control of a bouncy puck and another important one is to deliver a pass kids can catch. I like seeing kids learn this at age 7/8.

Your point on mouthguards is accurate. I have lots of pictures where a kids is chewing one. Also, at a recent game two kids got sent off for not having one. One's father is about to play his 1,000th NHL game and the other's dad is his coach.

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:49 pm

OTown,

You just lost all of your credibility when suggesting the blue puck is anything other than absolutely ridiculous. There is absolutely, positively, no developmental benefit to the blue puck. Don't ever bring it up again and maybe we'll forget you ever said it.

Unfortunately, one time it came out that the blue puck was a way for USA Hockey to make money. Again, recruit.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:49 pm

O-townClown wrote: A valuable skill is to be able to get control of a bouncy puck and another important one is to deliver a pass kids can catch. I like seeing kids learn this at age 7/8.

I'm not a blue puck advocate but......Most people over 40 grew up playing hockey outside with a tennisball, I don't think it hurt out skills. When I coached we used to end our practices splitting into 2 teams of 8-10 and playing with a tennisball, of course the hard core purists who never played hockeyand didn't even have kids on my team turned me in to the coach in chief as wasting valuable skill development time.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:51 pm

You are not comparing a NHL player to a mite are you. So if if an NHL player can handle it then a mite should be able to handle it as well. If that is the fact how can you support no checking for pee-wees? I mean if a mite player can handle what a NHL player can - a pee-wee sure better be able to.

My point is - The blue puck is not going to make a mite a more skilled or a better hockey player than the black puck. In my experience it was actually detrimental to them. Maybe I didn't give it enough time, but if it is not broke don't fix it.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:19 pm

observer wrote:Unfortunately, one time it came out that the blue puck was a way for USA Hockey to make money. Again, recruit.

Folks at USA Hockey also have said it doesn't bounce around a lot, then I've heard they were exploring a lightweight alternative that didn't bounce as much as the blue one.

Sure, feel free to blast the blue puck. Our kids will continue to use it and continue to enjoy its developmental benefits.

I don't know how the thing got in the rule book. It is obvious people don't follow the rule. Checking for Pee Wees is probably different because the liability risk is greater, but it would seem that you don't have to follow this rule if you don't feel like it and have complicit officials.

For the record, the only kids I've ever heard complain about the blue puck are the children of the adults that complain about the blue puck. What does that tell us?

EDIT:

Here is a paper on blue puck.
http://www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Blu ... 202005.pdf

itsjustkidshockey · Post by **itsjustkidshockey** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:02 am

No checking in hockey, no tackling in football, and God forbid if they play dodgeball in gym. Let's just put skirts on the boys and try to protect them as long as you can. Just another step in the pussification of America.

Checking is as much apart of hockey as tackling is in football. If you don't like it, take your little angel out of hockey but don't change the game.

I'm absolutely exhausted by the argument that we should change the game. Kids love hockey because it's physical. Take that away and you diminish the sport. Instead of looking for ways to eliminate the physical play, we should be looking for better ways to train kids within the current system.

By taking away checking, you're taking away another competitive learning experience and adding to the growing number that says average is okay. Hockey is not everyone, if you as a parent (Mom) can't handle it - take your kid dance or another non-contact sport and leave hockey alone and stop the pussification of this great sports nation.

If USA hockey changes the checking rule, in my opinion, it opens up the opportunity for competitive league formations and the downfall of community based hockey.

Finbal words: Leave hockey alone in Minnesota. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Ugottobekiddingme · Post by **Ugottobekiddingme** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:10 am

O-townClown wrote:
observer wrote:Unfortunately, one time it came out that the blue puck was a way for USA Hockey to make money. Again, recruit.
Folks at USA Hockey also have said it doesn't bounce around a lot, then I've heard they were exploring a lightweight alternative that didn't bounce as much as the blue one.

Sure, feel free to blast the blue puck. Our kids will continue to use it and continue to enjoy its developmental benefits.

I don't know how the thing got in the rule book. It is obvious people don't follow the rule. Checking for Pee Wees is probably different because the liability risk is greater, but it would seem that you don't have to follow this rule if you don't feel like it and have complicit officials.

For the record, the only kids I've ever heard complain about the blue puck are the children of the adults that complain about the blue puck. What does that tell us?

EDIT:

Here is a paper on blue puck.
http://www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Blu ... 202005.pdf

(hint)..we all know previous NHL players involved in MN Hock and they "all" are not selling your shtick here. Although the blue puck was a success training my retriever on returning a bouncing bird, it left little evidence towards any hockey development. Silly Clown..are you more interested in sales or kids hockey development??

observer · Post by **observer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:43 am

There's no way all the Tier 1 clubs across the US are dropping checking. Chicago Mission, no checking, Little Caesars, no checking, I don't see it.

Leadership needs to focus on growing the game. Work with membership to improve the game and quit dictating.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:14 am

You just lost all of your credibility

What took so long?

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:09 pm

Sure, feel free to blast the blue puck. Our kids will continue to use it and continue to enjoy its developmental benefits.

I don't know how the thing got in the rule book. It is obvious people don't follow the rule. Checking for Pee Wees is probably different because the liability risk is greater, but it would seem that you don't have to follow this rule if you don't feel like it and have complicit officials.

For the record, the only kids I've ever heard complain about the blue puck are the children of the adults that complain about the blue puck. What does that tell us?

EDIT:

Here is a paper on blue puck.
http://www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Blu ... 202005.pdf
_________________
Some say it's rap, some say it's legendary.

The problem with this paper is that there is no empirical evidence stating that it actually benefits mite players. I could write a similar paper using anecdotal evidence and testimonials proving the orange puck is good for kids (orange is a heavier puck) if I wanted to. These papers have no scientific evidence, no studies with a control group, but are passed along as evidence that it is superior. Out of context quotes to prove a point is a sign that there is a hidden agenda behind the initiative. I know Wayzata uses black pucks as mites and they do very well as squirts, peewees and bantams, so therefore, the black puck must be superior. Same level of evidence, supporting a completely different outcome.

Which brings us to checking. Show a video of a kid running around hitting people with illegal checks (that are not called) and use that as your anecdotal evidence that checking is bad in PeeWees. Skew a paper with like minded individuals, print selected letters of those who support your opinion, and grab a few big names and give them a two sentence quote supporting your initiative to drive change. Taking away checking at Peewee is nothing more than someones crusade to change a rule they do not like. There is no true evidence to support it one way or the other. Not saying its a bad idea, just that the empirical evidence is lacking one way or the other. There should be no hurry to change the rule, but there should be a controlled study looking at the impact of the rule. I would also look at introducing contact at squirts and see how that impact injuries when they become peewees (that could be an arm of the study).

The one series of studies that is true is that a lot of kids leave organized sports at age 13 or so. It is the same issue for all sports, not just hockey. Kids hit that age and make decisions based on a lot of things, but mostly it is showing independence (rebellion) and doing what they want to do, not what the parents want them to do.

It reminds me of congress. I think we have enough laws already, but since we pay people to make laws, we get thousands of new ones every year. They make laws because they have nothing better to do. I feel USA hockey makes new rules every year, because they have nothing better to do. Before you know it, tennis balls will be mandated for mini mites since it is safe, kids can lift the ball, and they can develop great eye/hand coordination. It just take some bored guy at USA hockey who has to make 6 new rules for his performance appraisal to come up with it.

Before running away from USA hockey, demand proof that these major initiatives are actually beneficial. There needs to be some rigor to the study-without it, anything can pass if someone in USA hockey wants it.

silentbutdeadly3139 · Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:12 am

O-townClown wrote:
observer wrote:Unfortunately, one time it came out that the blue puck was a way for USA Hockey to make money. Again, recruit.
Folks at USA Hockey also have said it doesn't bounce around a lot, then I've heard they were exploring a lightweight alternative that didn't bounce as much as the blue one.

Sure, feel free to blast the blue puck. Our kids will continue to use it and continue to enjoy its developmental benefits.

I don't know how the thing got in the rule book. It is obvious people don't follow the rule. Checking for Pee Wees is probably different because the liability risk is greater, but it would seem that you don't have to follow this rule if you don't feel like it and have complicit officials.

For the record, the only kids I've ever heard complain about the blue puck are the children of the adults that complain about the blue puck. What does that tell us?

EDIT:

Here is a paper on blue puck.
http://www.omha.net/admin/downloads/Blu ... 202005.pdf

things never heard on the way home "gee dad that blue puck sure is more more fun than that black one. My development is sooooooooo much better !!!!!!" Kids don't use words such as development, they use words such as fun and that puck bounces all over the place and its hard to catch a pass. why isn't it black like the NHL uses.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:13 pm

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:things never heard on the way home "gee dad that blue puck sure is more more fun than that black one. My development is sooooooooo much better !!!!!!" Kids don't use words such as development, they use words such as fun and that puck bounces all over the place and its hard to catch a pass. why isn't it black like the NHL uses.

No Mite has ever complained about the blue puck without first hearing their coach or parent say the same thing.

Hard to catch a pass? Good grief. Most Mites struggle to catch passes, and I've noticed the ones that can seem to catch passes well with either.

If the goal is to have something that doesn't bounce, we need to switch to a rubber ball partially filled with water. They don't bounce.

I'm surprised there was a movement this year to change the black puck to orange, but nothing to remove blue puck from the rule book. Oh well, two more years with it.

silentbutdeadly3139 · Post by **silentbutdeadly3139** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:58 am

O-townClown wrote:
silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:things never heard on the way home "gee dad that blue puck sure is more more fun than that black one. My development is sooooooooo much better !!!!!!" Kids don't use words such as development, they use words such as fun and that puck bounces all over the place and its hard to catch a pass. why isn't it black like the NHL uses.
No Mite has ever complained about the blue puck without first hearing their coach or parent say the same thing.

Hard to catch a pass? Good grief. Most Mites struggle to catch passes, and I've noticed the ones that can seem to catch passes well with either.

If the goal is to have something that doesn't bounce, we need to switch to a rubber ball partially filled with water. They don't bounce.

I'm surprised there was a movement this year to change the black puck to orange, but nothing to remove blue puck from the rule book. Oh well, two more years with it.

Wrong, a mite that has also played with the black pucks when parents aren't around to make them use the blue puck will notice the difference and make those comments. My first year mite was outside playing and someone brought a blue puck. Everyone kept hitting to another group to get rid of it, opting to use the black pucks. Good grief you act like mites can't do anything and don't notice anything. Sure some struggle with catching passes with EITHER puck but many can and do pass and catch passes. People sure put a lot of effort into finding an alternative to something that already exists ... I guess trying to build a better mouse trap to SELL.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:21 am

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:
O-townClown wrote:
silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:things never heard on the way home "gee dad that blue puck sure is more more fun than that black one. My development is sooooooooo much better !!!!!!" Kids don't use words such as development, they use words such as fun and that puck bounces all over the place and its hard to catch a pass. why isn't it black like the NHL uses.
No Mite has ever complained about the blue puck without first hearing their coach or parent say the same thing.

Hard to catch a pass? Good grief. Most Mites struggle to catch passes, and I've noticed the ones that can seem to catch passes well with either.

If the goal is to have something that doesn't bounce, we need to switch to a rubber ball partially filled with water. They don't bounce.

I'm surprised there was a movement this year to change the black puck to orange, but nothing to remove blue puck from the rule book. Oh well, two more years with it.
Wrong, a mite that has also played with the black pucks when parents aren't around to make them use the blue puck will notice the difference and make those comments. My first year mite was outside playing and someone brought a blue puck. Everyone kept hitting to another group to get rid of it, opting to use the black pucks. Good grief you act like mites can't do anything and don't notice anything. Sure some struggle with catching passes with EITHER puck but many can and do pass and catch passes. People sure put a lot of effort into finding an alternative to something that already exists ... I guess trying to build a better mouse trap to SELL.

I threw out 3 black and 3 blue pucks on the outdoor rink Saturday night. Kids started using the blue pucks to shoot because "they go a lot faster" and "you can roof them easier." Does my experience mean that black pucks stink for little kids? Not anymore than your tale leads to a blue puck equals evil conclusion.

No checking at Peewees is a similar situation. Most are only seeing the headline. There are elements in the USAh proposal that are very pro contact. Providing for more contact at younger levels, teaching checking in every practice for 2 years before it is legal in games, etc. Yet the focus seems to be on the headline. USAh is doing a poor job of presenting the proposal and the masses are doing a poor job of reading past the headline. There is a lot of common ground to work with.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:35 am

Most are only seeing the headline.

SPIN, quit spinning, we have read the articles to conclusion and a lot of the data (won't claim to of read it all), but still do not agree.

You obviously like the idea and don't like that most on here do not agree, so quit minimizing it that just the headline needs to change and we will see the light and agree with you.

To get better at anything you do it more, not less. To compete with the best you have rules and standards that allow you mirror them and hold them as that standard bearer.

Less is not more, it is just less.