Peewee checking letter

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:36 pm

Below is a copy of the letter I have sent by snail mail to both Mn Hockey and USA Hockey. The Mn Hockey next meeting is at the end of April and USA Hockey will meet in June. If you want to try and make a difference then if all who view here I wold encourage you to send a letter voicing your opinion. If each of you can also have 10 of your friends also send a letter and then have them contact 10 of their friends. A massive letter writing campaign is needed. The addresses are:

MINNESOTA HOCKEY
317 WASHINGTON STREET
ST PAUL, MN 55102
(651) 602-5727
(651) 222-1055 FAX
www.minnesotahockey.org
info@minnesotahockey.org

USA Hockey, Inc.
Walter L. Bush, Jr. Center
1775 Bob Johnson Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4090
Phone: (719) 576-USAH (8724)
Fax: (719) 538-1160
usahockey.com
usah@usahockey.org

To all,
I would like to offer my opinions on the current proposal put forth by USA Hockey to not allow checking at the Peewee Level. This was in place for the 1983-1985 seasons and my oldest son was a first year Peewee for the 84-85 season. Unfortunately his coach decided to move up 2 Squirts to the Peewee level and worked the entire seasons practices with drills concentrating on winning and did not even attempt to teach any sort of body contact. Two other coaches and I tried in vain to change this but were ignored and tried to work on this when we had time on our own. The next year checking was back for the Peewee level and because of the size difference I do believe my son would have been hurt more if the checking had been put off till his Bantam years. There were 2 players in their first year of Bantams that received season ending injuries because I believe of the greater size difference and the lack of proper teaching procedures.

I do believe that the hard hitting needs to be removed from the game. There are currently more than enough rules in place to take care of this, it just needs the courage to enforce them by both the officials and coaches to understand. Another issue is if you go back to the 80's,90's and early 2000 there was an effort to call fewer penalties and especially at the High School level hard and heavy hits were rewarded not penalized and there was also a lack of effort in teaching the proper techniques of body contact and body checking and angling. The players of those time periods are now the coaches and referees today.

I have a few proposals to put forward:

1. From USA Hockey a directive to enforce the rules of contact, contact to the head if accidental is a minor penalty plus a 10 minute misconduct. All other head contact Major plus a Game Misconduct. Use the terminology in 604 Board checking to govern excessive hits away from the boards.

2. Starting for the 2011-2012 season all coaches no matter what level must attend a clinic sponsored by USA Hockey first re-learn the techniques needed to body check and then be graded on ice as to their proficiency before their CEP card is re-certified. Also at all clinic levels sufficient time is to be spent on this area.

3. Start the teaching of body contact and allow limited body checking at the Squirt A and B levels.

4. Have independent evaluators' observe different Districts at the A and B Peewee levels and also evaluate the USA coaching clinics to insure the proper techniques are taught.

5. A complete record of penalties and injuries from different leagues throughout the state.

6. A 2 year study on above changes before other changes are put in place.

There was a reason that USA Hockey tried the no check in Peewees during the 1983-1985 season and there was also a reason that checking was put back in place the following season. I do fear that if body checking is removed from the Peewee level there might be coaches who will instead of teaching proper checking techniques and also the proper way to receive a check to protect yourself, take more practice time to work on other parts of the game. Also a player can get a false sense of security as now knowing there are restrictions on checking. By waiting till the Bantam age group there will also be a greater size and physical development factor which could lead to increased injury potential for those players new to checking in game situations.

Yes I did print and sign my name along with mailing address and phone number on the actual letters.

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:56 pm

GreyBeard,
Thank you very much for taking a leadership role in this. A proposed change of this magnitude is best served through education, at the local level, and not mandated through a rule change. Implementation will only damage MN Hockey's registration numbers.

Cut Above · Post by **Cut Above** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:58 pm

Some don't enforce the checking from behind rule so how do we trust they can handle calling hard hits! Oh, they're going to wait until a kid is in a wheel chair - again.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:42 pm

Cut Above,

All the more reason to teach it better and earlier. Get your kid signed up for football.

IcePick · Post by **IcePick** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:20 pm

Below is an e-mail from MN Hockey President (Rich Rakness' e-mail is incorrect, but his contact information is listed on the MN Hockey website). It is good to see MN Hockey solicit member feedback.

The MH Board of Director have established a committee to study, gather feedback from our members and establish a position on the PeeWee checking proposal. The members of that committee are:

Brad Hewitt Brad.Hewitt@phh.com
Steve Oleheiser solys@mchsi.com
Doug Kephart Dougk@larsonbuilders.com
Rich Rakness Dougk@larsonbuilders.com
Hal Tearse htearse@comcast.net
Terry Evavold terry.mnhockey@gmail.com
Eric Olson Eric.Olson12@gmail.com

I would suggest that comments be addressed to this committee.

Additionally, please go to http://www.usahockey.com//Template_Usah ... &ID=299508 for more information regarding the proposal.

Regards,

Dave Margenau
President, Minnesota Hockey

thespellchecker · Post by **thespellchecker** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:08 pm

greybeard58 wrote:Below is a copy of the letter I have sent by snail mail to both Mn Hockey and USA Hockey. The Mn Hockey next meeting is at the end of April and USA Hockey will meet in June. If you want to try and make a difference then if all who view here I wold encourage you to send a letter voicing your opinion. If each of you can also have 10 of your friends also send a letter and then have them contact 10 of their friends. A massive letter writing campaign is needed.
.

Beard,
Do you want people to contact USA / MN Hockey and tell 10 of their friends if they support USA Hockey's plan to stop checking at pw? Or were you just assuming all people had your same viewpoint?

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:40 pm

All people do. Don't they?

Mnhockeys · Post by **Mnhockeys** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:10 pm

Majority people do. Don't we?

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:18 am

thespellchecker wrote:
greybeard58 wrote:Below is a copy of the letter I have sent by snail mail to both Mn Hockey and USA Hockey. The Mn Hockey next meeting is at the end of April and USA Hockey will meet in June. If you want to try and make a difference then if all who view here I wold encourage you to send a letter voicing your opinion. If each of you can also have 10 of your friends also send a letter and then have them contact 10 of their friends. A massive letter writing campaign is needed.
.

Beard,
Do you want people to contact USA / MN Hockey and tell 10 of their friends if they support USA Hockey's plan to stop checking at pw? Or were you just assuming all people had your same viewpoint?

if you agree with USAH plan--send them a letter letting them know that you do, and if you can find 10 other people that do as well--they can send one to.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:37 am

I have sent the letter voicing my opinion only. I would hope everyone would express their own opinion in writing to both governing bodies. Let the numbers speak but most important everyone needs to send letters.

Again the most important is to voice your opinion in writing to both governing bodies.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:47 pm

Bump, seems like a good time to bring to the top.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:09 pm

This is a pure Chicago Politics play. They just haven't decided by how much the measure will pass by.

This could be greatly simplified by introducing body contact at squirts and by imposing severe penalties on coaches whose teams have excessive "violent" checking penalties.

How about trying this for a year:

First penalty involving checking, coach get warning (boarding, charging, head shot, checking from behind).

Second penalty in the game gets the coach kicked out of the game.

Third such penalty, the assistant gets kicked out and the coach gets an extra game.

Fourth such penalty, the second assistant is kicked out and the coach gets a third game.

Fifth such penalty and the team forfeits the game.

Just a thought, the details on games and suspensions can be worked out. Suspensions of of coaches due to "checking"related penalties should clean up the game in a hurry from those excessively hard and cheap hits.

NSH17 · Post by **NSH17** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:42 pm

This will be a disaster for boys hockey...but on the positive side, it will be great for the girls. Many will play boys hockey if this passes.... including mine.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:06 pm

Why have boys and girls? Just have youth hockey!!! [ untill bantams]

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:47 pm

NSH17 wrote:This will be a disaster for boys hockey...but on the positive side, it will be great for the girls. Many will play boys hockey if this passes.... including mine.

how would this be great for the girls? the top girls would play with the boys(for better development?), and not have a chance to develop a relationship with the majority of girls, who in all likely-hood will be their teammates in a few years at the HS level--how exactly does this "help" the girls? IMHO, I feel it would destroy the girls youth programs.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:22 pm

I have four boys skating and one girl. I would much rather my daughter skate w/the girls. But in our town if 6 or 8 girls go skate pee-wee it leaves a guy no choice but to move his U12 to pee-wee.

trippedovertheblueline · Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:29 pm

old goalie85 wrote:I have four boys skating and one girl. I would much rather my daughter skate w/the girls. But in our town if 6 or 8 girls go skate pee-wee it leaves a guy no choice but to move his U12 to pee-wee.

Please dont

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:19 am

old goalie85 wrote:I have four boys skating and one girl. I would much rather my daughter skate w/the girls. But in our town if 6 or 8 girls go skate pee-wee it leaves a guy no choice but to move his U12 to pee-wee.

Why would 6 or 8 girls decide to play PW in Forest Lake? I don't see any girls on the squirt rosters. Why would a girl play U10B and then play PW instead of U12A?
I don't think the no-checking at PW rule is going to cause a massive migration of girls to the youth side. Fewer girls will play PW than play Squirts. And girls playing Squirts is not destroying the girls game at the U10 level.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:02 am

Spin- The year before, my sons sa team had a girl. Both b's had girls. Last year a girl was on the pb2 and she's coming back. So it could happen.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:10 am

That being said no checking @ pee-wees is a bad idea in my opinion.I can't think of anyone I know that thinks it is. My wife wrote our letter, thanks for the info Grey.

jancze5 · Post by **jancze5** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:29 am

If you have a daughter playing on a boys team in an association that has girls teams, you're honestly robbing her of the experience of being part of a team of girls and the bonds built with that. and if you think she's too good or that the girls team is too bad, you're operating in the dark.

The real question is how will Minnesota align itself age wise if the rule is passed. Let's be honest, Minnesota's Pee Wee's are Bantams in the rest of the country, especially the majority of PWA rosters. Minnesota has to figure out how to fix that because our players will be another year behind in reality.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:52 am

Since MN registers it's PWs as bantams, MN could choose to keep PW checking if they had the courage to do so. Not sure MN hockey has the nads to stick up to USA hockey though.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:23 pm

Jancze- I get it. My point is this isn't that large of a group anyway. If 6 to 8 girls go to boys.[and this is what I'm hearing] What should I do tell her NO you can't play hockey because I don't want to rob you of the experience of ..............Stupid rule I just don't get it. It's like USAH is trying to wreck MN hockey!!!

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:39 pm

Most girls don't want to play with the boys. I'll say 80% wouldn't want to even if given the opportunity. Boys are icky. Recruiting of girls has grown in many areas when girls teams were added as many of them want to play with other girls which can't be a surprise. Most see it as much more of a social experience than a hockey development experience. Be careful dads because you may really turn your daughter off to the whole idea of playing the game. To not even understand your own daughter’s desires can be embarrassing.

Having said all of that I sure hope they don't remove checking from the PeeWee game. Big mistake that will yield several injuries at the bantam level when there will be a violent meeting between the kids that have done it and are experienced checkers vs. the kids that haven't and aren't experienced. The A level game is so fast now that there often isn't time for a lot of checking or you're behind the play and creating an odd man going the other direction. At B and B2 you got big dopes cruising around just looking to level little Johnny. Bantam B? Watch out for your introduction to checking.

The key to growing the game is recruiting new players. It used to be a given that little Johnny would sign up but now with crazy schedules, competing activities that also are pushing for year round development and the financial commitment now that hockey is a 10 month of the year sport has families looking for other things to do. Each association needs a dedicated recruiting committee to focus on growing numbers in their community. With growth comes more revenue, more teams, more kids playing at the right level and more and better volunteers. None of that comes with holding checking until bantam. Growing numbers provides serious benefits to organizations and delaying checking provides zero benefit to growth. Without a dedicated recruiting effort it’s guaranteed your organization shrink. Having distinct girls programs can boost your recruiting success as most girls want to play with other girls and their friends. Most want activities they can call their own and not shared with smelly boys.

Frankly, it blows my mind that hockey leadership doesn’t even know how to grow their game. Recruit my friends. It solves everything.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:51 pm

you're honestly robbing her of the experience of being part of a team of girls and the bonds built with that

A little melodramatic. If she plays volleyball and softball, then can she play peewee hockey?

Frankly, it blows my mind that hockey leadership doesn’t even know how to grow their game.

With a few exceptions, this is true at all levels - association, district, state, US.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Peewee checking letter

Peewee checking letter

Re: Peewee checking letter

Re: Peewee checking letter

gils