What would you do if USA Hockey banned checking in PeeWees

[itsjustkidshockey]

What would you do if USA hockey banned checking in PeeWees

[elliott70]

It is NOT MH that is making the rule. It is USAH. MH, as do all their affiliates, follow USAH rules, unless they are given a variatin from USAH.

[old goalie85]

If mn. hockey just let's USAH walk all over us the people of mn. Then all we can do is turn to the private orgs. As much as I don't like Bernie[he grew up ,and went to school with us] I will be writing him a check. And I'm going to end up bringing my two younger boys with me. The only kids that I will have skating in FL. will be my U12, and high school kid.

[itsjustkidshockey]

It is NOT MH that is making the rule. It is USAH. MH, as do all their affiliates, follow USAH rules, unless they are given a variatin from USAH.

Thanks for the clarification Elliot. I hope MH has the final say for what happens here.

[elliott70]

It is NOT MH that is making the rule. It is USAH. MH, as do all their affiliates, follow USAH rules, unless they are given a variatin from USAH.

Thanks for the clarification Elliot. I hope MH has the final say for what happens here.

It is being discussed by some of us as to what options are available.

[jancze5]

If USA Hockey institutes a rule that there is no checking until after Pee Wee hockey, I'd imagine MN hockey will be forced to relook at their age/level cutoff and seriously consider birth year hockey or a twist so there age levels at least match the birth years of USA Hockey, If they don't, only then will Minnesota have 50% of their current older Pee Wee's be behind the power curve with the rest of USA Hockey. Otherwise, with this rule I'd imagine that high school hockey in Minnesota will suffer no ill effects and the youth associations that can really teach kids to skate (see d6) will be the stronger teams at the Pee Wee level. With that said, if anyone thinks that Bernie will have a checking Pee Wee league to counter this, consider who is reffinng those games. I can't fathom that a Ref would be able to allow

[muckandgrind]

I'm not the biggest McBain fan in the world, either....but if I still had a son at the PW level, I would definitely think about other options (if that's what my son wanted).

I think a rule change like this would spark the creation of additional for-profit leagues in the Metro and MN Hockey would begin to lose it's monopolistic grip.

Goodbye checking? Hello Tier I.

[silentbutdeadly3139]

I'm not the biggest McBain fan in the world, either....but if I still had a son at the PW level, I would definitely think about other options (if that's what my son wanted).

I think a rule change like this would spark the creation of additional for-profit leagues in the Metro and MN Hockey would begin to lose it's monopolistic grip.

Goodbye checking? Hello Tier I.

If I'm not mistaken Tier I would fall under this rule also so that wouldn't be an alternative. "Independent" leagues would be the only alternative.

[AlterEagle]

I think you guys are making too big a deal over this... It's all speculation at this point as to negative OR positive affects on the game.

[greybeard58]

This is not a new idea, during the 1983-1985 season USA Hockey (AHAUS) did not allow checking at the PeeWee level. If you were born Jan 1,1971 or later you did play 2 years of non checking PeeWee Hockey and if you were born Jan 1,1972 or after you played 1 year of non checking hockey and 1 year of checking PeeWee hockey. The following years the 1985-87 rule book checking was again allowed at the PeeWee level.

[muckandgrind]

I'm not the biggest McBain fan in the world, either....but if I still had a son at the PW level, I would definitely think about other options (if that's what my son wanted).

I think a rule change like this would spark the creation of additional for-profit leagues in the Metro and MN Hockey would begin to lose it's monopolistic grip.

Goodbye checking? Hello Tier I.

If I'm not mistaken Tier I would fall under this rule also so that wouldn't be an alternative. "Independent" leagues would be the only alternative.

I knew someone would respond with this.......but I disagree with your take. It's my belief that the Tier I leagues would go independent if USAH keeps attempting to dictate these major rule changes. So I still say: Goodbye Checking, Hello Tier I.

[greybeard58]

Since there were not a large number of people attending the Mn Hockey winter meeting and voicing their opinions on this issue, I would suggest that all take the time and send Mn Hockey letters stating your opinion on this issue.

There are many reasons not to attend meetings but there is no excuse not to take the short time needed and write a letter and place it in the mail. Do not wait for someone else to do it just go ahead and do it yourself and also get your friends to also mail in their opinion.The mailing address is on the front cover of the Mn Hockey handbook but here it is:

Minnesota Hockey
317 Washington Street
St Paul,Minnesota 55102

Fax 651-222-1055

While you are at it send one to USA Hockey also the address is:

USA Hockey
1775 Bob Johnson Dr
Colorado Springs, Co. 80906-4090

A very large number of letters will get their attention both at Mn Hockey and USA Hockey. This is an important issue so take the small amount of time and send the letters. Can you imagine the affect that 10,000 letters would have on the Mn Hockey board especially since about 4000 completed the survey they did a few years ago. Now if you could also add that amount per state going to USA Hockey they would have to pay attention. I will send my letters will you?

[O-townClown]

Muck, rampant hockey outside the jurisdiction of USA Hockey would be interesting. If I'm not mistaken, a few guys stuck around an extra after the USA Hockey Winter Meeting and met with AAU (across the street) to discuss splintering off a Junior league.

[council member retired]

Your either onto something or your on something, but indeed a MN Hockey icon had a meeting today with exectives of AAU

[O-townClown]

Your either onto something or your on something, but indeed a MN Hockey icon had a meeting today with exectives of AAU

Be careful what you wish for....

I'm not a big fan of the AAU. Bobby Dodd, Chet Lemon, Amare Stoudemire, King, etc....

A lot of people complain about USA Hockey, but I don't think it is corrupt.

[silentbutdeadly3139]

I'm not the biggest McBain fan in the world, either....but if I still had a son at the PW level, I would definitely think about other options (if that's what my son wanted).

I think a rule change like this would spark the creation of additional for-profit leagues in the Metro and MN Hockey would begin to lose it's monopolistic grip.

Goodbye checking? Hello Tier I.

If I'm not mistaken Tier I would fall under this rule also so that wouldn't be an alternative. "Independent" leagues would be the only alternative.

I knew someone would respond with this.......but I disagree with your take. It's my belief that the Tier I leagues would go independent if USAH keeps attempting to dictate these major rule changes. So I still say: Goodbye Checking, Hello Tier I.

Your not disagreeing, isn't tier I under the jurisdiction of US hockey ? what your saying is what i'm suggesting, a new independent league, made up of formerly tier I teams would have to from a new organization such as a\AAU.

[muckandgrind]

If I'm not mistaken Tier I would fall under this rule also so that wouldn't be an alternative. "Independent" leagues would be the only alternative.

I knew someone would respond with this.......but I disagree with your take. It's my belief that the Tier I leagues would go independent if USAH keeps attempting to dictate these major rule changes. So I still say: Goodbye Checking, Hello Tier I.

Your not disagreeing, isn't tier I under the jurisdiction of US hockey ? what your saying is what i'm suggesting, a new independent league, made up of formerly tier I teams would have to from a new organization such as a\AAU.

They are under their jurisdiction, until they decide to not be...and if USAH continues down the current path, I wouldn't be shocked to see them bolt.

[James B Mcbain]

I know alot of kids would just go to Minnesota Made where checking would be allowed.

[observer]

I know alot of kids would just go to Minnesota Made where checking would be allowed.

Actually, what we're hearing is, it wouldn't be.

Jancze mentioned refs wouldn't be allowed to ref any games allowing checking outside of USA Hockey rules. Probably true. Tier 1 across the US is part of USA Hockey so they would no longer check in their leagues either. And, can you say, insurance issue?

I hope it doesn't pass as it seems like a lazy way to keep players in the game. I like recruiting better. But, just saying if it does pass no one will be doing any checking anywhere at the PeeWee level.

[muckandgrind]

Is it me, or does it seem as though USAH is rushing themselves into making this decision??? It doesn't make any sense....checking has been around the PeeWee game for many years, waiting a couple of years to THOROUGHLY study the issue seems like the more prudent way to move forward.

I have yet to see a study linking "legal" checks to concussions. I've seen studies based on anecdotal evidence that talk about concussions/injuries being caused by headshots, checking from behind, charging and boarding....ALL of which are already illegal. Where are the studies that show a clean check below the head causes concussions?

[the_juiceman]

With so many people on this fourm stating they would look else where if the no checking was implented, I was wondering where do they think they would go? MM, SSM, Fire? Let's get real. First of all, those organizations have a limited # of spots, 2nd, If you could afford those, you'd probably already have done that move. AAU? sure.."pull this leg and it plays jingle bells".. the fact is, that even if a new league gets started, it won't be for a few years, by that time, your kids will be in bantams or will have quit the game. When all is said and done, most will remain in their current association. MH & USAH have been around for a very long time, and they will continue to be. While I'm not in favor of the "no checking proposal", in the long run, not much will change in the terms of where kids will be playing. USHA is not the big, bad, greedy, money making machine that many of you are making them out to be. They have the best interest of the kids in mind-IMHO- whether you agree with them or not. The "sky is not falling". Let's quit acting like it is.

[Thunderstruck]

If they took checking out of pee wees back in the mid 80's and then brought it back in just a couple of years they must of felt it didn't work. I hope we learn from our mistakes and not let history repeat itself.

[muckandgrind]

With so many people on this fourm stating they would look else where if the no checking was implented, I was wondering where do they think they would go? MM, SSM, Fire? Let's get real. First of all, those organizations have a limited # of spots, 2nd, If you could afford those, you'd probably already have done that move. AAU? sure.."pull this leg and it plays jingle bells".. the fact is, that even if a new league gets started, it won't be for a few years, by that time, your kids will be in bantams or will have quit the game. When all is said and done, most will remain in their current association. MH & USAH have been around for a very long time, and they will continue to be. While I'm not in favor of the "no checking proposal", in the long run, not much will change in the terms of where kids will be playing. USHA is not the big, bad, greedy, money making machine that many of you are making them out to be. They have the best interest of the kids in mind-IMHO- whether you agree with them or not. The "sky is not falling". Let's quit acting like it is.

You're right, it may take a few years to get more independent teams/leagues started up....but if USAH keeps dictating rule changes that (from all appearances) their membership overwhelmingly don't want, then that is what you'll start to see.

I wouldn't be surprised to see hockey turn into something like baseball where you have something like Little League and Gopher State running independent of each other.

[DMom]

With so many people on this fourm stating they would look else where if the no checking was implented, I was wondering where do they think they would go? MM, SSM, Fire? Let's get real. First of all, those organizations have a limited # of spots, 2nd, If you could afford those, you'd probably already have done that move. AAU? sure.."pull this leg and it plays jingle bells".. the fact is, that even if a new league gets started, it won't be for a few years, by that time, your kids will be in bantams or will have quit the game. When all is said and done, most will remain in their current association. MH & USAH have been around for a very long time, and they will continue to be. While I'm not in favor of the "no checking proposal", in the long run, not much will change in the terms of where kids will be playing. USHA is not the big, bad, greedy, money making machine that many of you are making them out to be. They have the best interest of the kids in mind-IMHO- whether you agree with them or not. The "sky is not falling". Let's quit acting like it is.

You're right, it may take a few years to get more independent teams/leagues started up....but if USAH keeps dictating rule changes that (from all appearances) their membership overwhelmingly don't want, then that is what you'll start to see.

I wouldn't be surprised to see hockey turn into something like baseball where you have something like Little League and Gopher State running independent of each other.

and how is that a good thing? You really think that driving 53 miles one trip for a Gopher State league game is building better baseball players?

So you have the Gopher State Champion and the MBT Champion and isn't there another? What you end up with is no real champion. I would just make sure what is being built is actually better than what is.

[muckandgrind]

With so many people on this fourm stating they would look else where if the no checking was implented, I was wondering where do they think they would go? MM, SSM, Fire? Let's get real. First of all, those organizations have a limited # of spots, 2nd, If you could afford those, you'd probably already have done that move. AAU? sure.."pull this leg and it plays jingle bells".. the fact is, that even if a new league gets started, it won't be for a few years, by that time, your kids will be in bantams or will have quit the game. When all is said and done, most will remain in their current association. MH & USAH have been around for a very long time, and they will continue to be. While I'm not in favor of the "no checking proposal", in the long run, not much will change in the terms of where kids will be playing. USHA is not the big, bad, greedy, money making machine that many of you are making them out to be. They have the best interest of the kids in mind-IMHO- whether you agree with them or not. The "sky is not falling". Let's quit acting like it is.

You're right, it may take a few years to get more independent teams/leagues started up....but if USAH keeps dictating rule changes that (from all appearances) their membership overwhelmingly don't want, then that is what you'll start to see.

I wouldn't be surprised to see hockey turn into something like baseball where you have something like Little League and Gopher State running independent of each other.

and how is that a good thing? You really think that driving 53 miles one trip for a Gopher State league game is building better baseball players?

So you have the Gopher State Champion and the MBT Champion and isn't there another? What you end up with is no real champion. I would just make sure what is being built is actually better than what is.

Never said it was...What I said was that "I wouldn't be surprised" to see it happen.

USAH needs to take a deep breath, slow down, and really study this issue before voting on this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they haven't produced a single study that shows a direct link between clean and LEGAL checks and a rise in concussions.

The New York Times published a story that showed the concussion rate for NCAA Women's hockey is nearly DOUBLE that of Men's hockey (2.72 per 1,000 v 1.47 per 1,000)....and there is NO CHECKING IN WOMEN'S HOCKEY!!!!! How is it possible that a sport that bans checking has a higher rate of concussions that a sport that allows it?

Some say it's because the women don't anticipate getting hit....so when they do get hit, they suffer more of a "whiplash" effect that the men who are always prepared for that hit....and why are the men more prepared??? Because they've been playing in that environment since they were kids, IMO.

Getting rid of checking does nothing to address concussions.....Teaching kids how to check (and receive a check) properly and educating the refs on calling headshots, boarding, charging, and checking from behind more stictly WILL decrease the # of concussions and other injuries, IMO.