Skills Coach posted:
“It seems to me there is a real misconception over what would be "removed" from the PeeWee Level. If you read the proposal it suggests that checking by definition would be removed, however, body contact, rub outs, angling, steering would be taught even at an earlier age. Is this not the type of "checks" we should be encouraging? The game is after all about putting the puck in the net, right?’
He makes my point. The USA Hockey Youth Development Director is basing his rational to eliminate checking at the peewee level on his perception that 11-12 year old brains have not developed and can’t be taught how to position their bodies. If that is true, how can you teach the same 11-12 year olds body contact, rub outs, angling, and steering. It makes no sense and when something makes no sense, then other reasons have to be looked for.
Does anybody know what USA Hockey’s relationship is to HARP?
Peewee checking letter
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
skills, no misconception, USAH is proposing a major rule change that will really impact youth hockey.
You are right, coaching at the youth level has absolutely dropped the ball on teaching proper checking tecniques to the kids, and this is where the problem lies. Many people have said this and I agree, rubbing, angling and such should be taught at squirts with a workup to full body contact in 2nd year practice and off-season to prepare for pw's. When at pw's, practice, preach and praise proper tecnique. Everyone says this is when kids should be taught skills, well hello, checking is a skill.
Checking is an integral part of the game. A well executed check can be a thing of beauty and requires skill and expertise. It brings excitement to our game. A poor or malicious check, well that's anther story. Can be alot of reasons, poor timing, coaching, training, temper what have you, but that's why we have penalties hockey. Don't be afraid of checking, embrace it!
How does one get good at anything in life? Proper education, practice and repetition. Bottom line is this, educate the referees, educate the coaches, educate the kids and leave the game alone. Sound unreasonable? I think not.
You are right, coaching at the youth level has absolutely dropped the ball on teaching proper checking tecniques to the kids, and this is where the problem lies. Many people have said this and I agree, rubbing, angling and such should be taught at squirts with a workup to full body contact in 2nd year practice and off-season to prepare for pw's. When at pw's, practice, preach and praise proper tecnique. Everyone says this is when kids should be taught skills, well hello, checking is a skill.
Checking is an integral part of the game. A well executed check can be a thing of beauty and requires skill and expertise. It brings excitement to our game. A poor or malicious check, well that's anther story. Can be alot of reasons, poor timing, coaching, training, temper what have you, but that's why we have penalties hockey. Don't be afraid of checking, embrace it!
How does one get good at anything in life? Proper education, practice and repetition. Bottom line is this, educate the referees, educate the coaches, educate the kids and leave the game alone. Sound unreasonable? I think not.
Fred, no offense but you seem to have an ax to grind with the USA Hockey Youth Director. You are arguing semantics over substance. Skills made some great points and wasn't arguing how the director based his rationale. Do you really think the entire basis of this rule change is focused on whether 11-12 yr old brains have developed enough to learn how to position their bodies? There are good points being made for each side and it's easy to get worked up over one specific point (regardless of how relevant that point is.)frederick61 wrote: He makes my point. The USA Hockey Youth Development Director is basing his rational to eliminate checking at the peewee level on his perception that 11-12 year old brains have not developed and can’t be taught how to position their bodies. If that is true, how can you teach the same 11-12 year olds body contact, rub outs, angling, and steering. It makes no sense and when something makes no sense, then other reasons have to be looked for.
Does anybody know what USA Hockey’s relationship is to HARP?
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Fred: I have not listened to all the interviews, etc. But from what I have read and seen from conferences, the issue of "the 11-12 year old brain not being developed to handle checking" is dealing with the brains inability to handle getting slammed into the skull. The brain is capable of learning motor skills at a very young age. (i.e. crawling, walking at less than 1 year old)
I'm sure you were against tuuk blades, facemasks, composite sticks, etc.
You are a dinosaur!
I'm sure you were against tuuk blades, facemasks, composite sticks, etc.
You are a dinosaur!
-
The Other Bash Brother
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:08 pm
Yes you should check the internet because absolutely 100% of everything that has ever been on the internet is guaranteed 100% truthful.frederick61 wrote:All decisions boil down to a few people. The USA Hockey Youth Director has been quoted saying that 11-12 year old kid's brains are not developed to the extent that they can handle body contact. Check the internet.
-
skills_coach1
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:47 am
Intheslot... We agree. All I was stating was that folks focus on "removal of checking" rather than the concept of the whole package... It really is not a removal of checking, but, a change in the way checking should be taught, called and enforced.Intheslot wrote:skills, no misconception, USAH is proposing a major rule change that will really impact youth hockey.
You are right, coaching at the youth level has absolutely dropped the ball on teaching proper checking tecniques to the kids, and this is where the problem lies. Many people have said this and I agree, rubbing, angling and such should be taught at squirts with a workup to full body contact in 2nd year practice and off-season to prepare for pw's. When at pw's, practice, preach and praise proper tecnique. Everyone says this is when kids should be taught skills, well hello, checking is a skill.
Checking is an integral part of the game. A well executed check can be a thing of beauty and requires skill and expertise. It brings excitement to our game. A poor or malicious check, well that's anther story. Can be alot of reasons, poor timing, coaching, training, temper what have you, but that's why we have penalties hockey. Don't be afraid of checking, embrace it!
How does one get good at anything in life? Proper education, practice and repetition. Bottom line is this, educate the referees, educate the coaches, educate the kids and leave the game alone. Sound unreasonable? I think not.
I agree it is a major rule change. As much as I hate to admit this..... until we actually try it we probably won't know the true outcome. Proper evaluation for a few rounds (years) is likely warranted. We can try and predict it will be the downfall of hockey as we know it in MN until we are blue in the face..... But until something like this is implemented, we really won't know. Will we Fred??
-
Puck Whisperer
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:16 am
Skills, this does all boil down to a few people in power with agenda's to steer the direction of hockey to the way they feel it should be played.
Your statement reminds me exactly what Pelosi said, "we have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill". So we're supposed to just put our faith in the people in charge. Why don't we have more of a say in the process?
USAH to me has just morphed into another arm of the government and is operating in the same manner as our government today- they've lost touch with the people. You let these people get their foot in the door on this, where does it end? Nerf hockey with your annual "union" dues at $500 per yr. would be my guess.
ps. sorry to bring politics into the discussion, but the situation and circumstances are way too similar
Your statement reminds me exactly what Pelosi said, "we have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill". So we're supposed to just put our faith in the people in charge. Why don't we have more of a say in the process?
USAH to me has just morphed into another arm of the government and is operating in the same manner as our government today- they've lost touch with the people. You let these people get their foot in the door on this, where does it end? Nerf hockey with your annual "union" dues at $500 per yr. would be my guess.
ps. sorry to bring politics into the discussion, but the situation and circumstances are way too similar
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
There are multiple studies that compare two peewee leagues, one checking and one no checking. Here is one reported in June 2010 by researchers at the University of Calgary.
It compared two leagues with checking (in Alberta tracking 74 teams with 1,108 kids or an average of 15 players per team) and one with no checking (in Quebec tracking 76 teams with 1,046 players average of under 14 players on a team). The study assumes that the kids are peewee ages (11-13) and does not report on the actual age of the kids.
The study documents the Alberta league that allowed checking with having 241 injuries and “14 having endured severe concussions” and the Quebec league with having 91 injuries and “4 having endured severe concussions.
The Calgary researches attributed these different injury levels to the size of the kids “ranging from 70 pounds to almost 200 pounds”. It therefore concludes that checking is the reason.
I want to pause to review simple physics that govern any collision; force (ability to deliver a hit hard enough that can cause concussions) is equal to the mass (the size of the kid) multiplied by acceleration squared (the speed at which the kid is skating). The faster a kid skates, the harder will be the hit and because the speed is squared (the product of speed X speed), it is a bigger contributor to the force (the hard hit) then size.
However a small mass (kid) absorbing a hard hit is more likely to be driven in the opposite direction regardless who hits him. That was one of the study’s major conclusions; “there is increased risk for injury in players who are in the lowest 25th percentile by weight”. It does not state age as the risk, but states weight.
The second study done by American Pediatrics that recognized that the hardness of the hit is a product of mass and speed squared and recommended that kids be taught to protect themselves and further recommended that until the kids can be taught to protect themselves that no checking be allowed at levels 15 years old and under.
This second study quotes the Calgary study as defining peewees kids as being ages 12-13.
Here is a table from yet another Canada group reporting on hockey injuries based on kids showing up for medical treatment in Ontario and Quebec during a 5 year period (1995-2000) time when Quebec did not allow checking until the age of 14 and Ontario allowed checking at the age of 10.
TABLE 1 Comparison of Injuries in Jurisdictions in Which Body Checking Was Allowed and Not Allowed, 1995–2002
Age Group Type of Injury Checking Allowed, n (%) Checking Not Allowed, n (%)
________________________________________
10- and 11-y-old players (atom)
Checking-related 258 (49) 681 (41)
Fractures 147 (29) 396 (25)
Concussions 20 (4) 42 (3)
Total hockey injuries 526 1642
11- and 12-y-old players (pee wee)
Checking-related 574 (48) 148 (27)
Fractures 345 (30) 135 (25)
Concussions 40 (3) 13 (2)
Total hockey injuries 1184 554
Source: Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program.
Based on the above table data, checking should be allowed at the 10-11 year age to reduce concussions and banned at the 11-12 year age to reduce concussions.
The USA Hockey Youth Director has been quoted that recommendation should only apply to the 11-12 kids because their brain development. If you want to reduce concussion rates, put the kids in the lower 25 per cent by weight in a no checking league (at least that is what the Calgary study implies).
All of these studies show one thing, a lack of understanding of youth hockey and what goes on at the rink especially in Minnesota. I don’t trust these studies because the researchers don’t have the money and willingness to simple spend years of time at rinks and get involved with the kids.
The kids are numbers and the researchers have an agenda.
As for the USA Hockey Youth Director, he has bigger problems then this divisive (at least for Minnesota) issue. His Tier I/Tier II structure is dying as the national economy sours and he wants to impact the one successful area he has.
It compared two leagues with checking (in Alberta tracking 74 teams with 1,108 kids or an average of 15 players per team) and one with no checking (in Quebec tracking 76 teams with 1,046 players average of under 14 players on a team). The study assumes that the kids are peewee ages (11-13) and does not report on the actual age of the kids.
The study documents the Alberta league that allowed checking with having 241 injuries and “14 having endured severe concussions” and the Quebec league with having 91 injuries and “4 having endured severe concussions.
The Calgary researches attributed these different injury levels to the size of the kids “ranging from 70 pounds to almost 200 pounds”. It therefore concludes that checking is the reason.
I want to pause to review simple physics that govern any collision; force (ability to deliver a hit hard enough that can cause concussions) is equal to the mass (the size of the kid) multiplied by acceleration squared (the speed at which the kid is skating). The faster a kid skates, the harder will be the hit and because the speed is squared (the product of speed X speed), it is a bigger contributor to the force (the hard hit) then size.
However a small mass (kid) absorbing a hard hit is more likely to be driven in the opposite direction regardless who hits him. That was one of the study’s major conclusions; “there is increased risk for injury in players who are in the lowest 25th percentile by weight”. It does not state age as the risk, but states weight.
The second study done by American Pediatrics that recognized that the hardness of the hit is a product of mass and speed squared and recommended that kids be taught to protect themselves and further recommended that until the kids can be taught to protect themselves that no checking be allowed at levels 15 years old and under.
This second study quotes the Calgary study as defining peewees kids as being ages 12-13.
Here is a table from yet another Canada group reporting on hockey injuries based on kids showing up for medical treatment in Ontario and Quebec during a 5 year period (1995-2000) time when Quebec did not allow checking until the age of 14 and Ontario allowed checking at the age of 10.
TABLE 1 Comparison of Injuries in Jurisdictions in Which Body Checking Was Allowed and Not Allowed, 1995–2002
Age Group Type of Injury Checking Allowed, n (%) Checking Not Allowed, n (%)
________________________________________
10- and 11-y-old players (atom)
Checking-related 258 (49) 681 (41)
Fractures 147 (29) 396 (25)
Concussions 20 (4) 42 (3)
Total hockey injuries 526 1642
11- and 12-y-old players (pee wee)
Checking-related 574 (48) 148 (27)
Fractures 345 (30) 135 (25)
Concussions 40 (3) 13 (2)
Total hockey injuries 1184 554
Source: Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program.
Based on the above table data, checking should be allowed at the 10-11 year age to reduce concussions and banned at the 11-12 year age to reduce concussions.
The USA Hockey Youth Director has been quoted that recommendation should only apply to the 11-12 kids because their brain development. If you want to reduce concussion rates, put the kids in the lower 25 per cent by weight in a no checking league (at least that is what the Calgary study implies).
All of these studies show one thing, a lack of understanding of youth hockey and what goes on at the rink especially in Minnesota. I don’t trust these studies because the researchers don’t have the money and willingness to simple spend years of time at rinks and get involved with the kids.
The kids are numbers and the researchers have an agenda.
As for the USA Hockey Youth Director, he has bigger problems then this divisive (at least for Minnesota) issue. His Tier I/Tier II structure is dying as the national economy sours and he wants to impact the one successful area he has.
Let's look at this from a pure numbers perspective. In the checking league 22% of the kids incurred injuries with slightly more than 1% getting severe concussions while in the non-checking league 9% of the kids incurred injuries with .4% getting severe concussions. Despite this you are still completely against the rule proposal? Again, what is best for the KIDS?frederick61 wrote: It compared two leagues with checking (in Alberta tracking 74 teams with 1,108 kids or an average of 15 players per team) and one with no checking (in Quebec tracking 76 teams with 1,046 players average of under 14 players on a team). The study assumes that the kids are peewee ages (11-13) and does not report on the actual age of the kids.
The study documents the Alberta league that allowed checking with having 241 injuries and “14 having endured severe concussions” and the Quebec league with having 91 injuries and “4 having endured severe concussions.
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
Yet, girls and women who play in non-checking leagues experience a higher rate of concussions than boys that playing in checking leagues. There are more concussions suffered in NCAA women's hockey than in men's.darkhorse wrote:Let's look at this from a pure numbers perspective. In the checking league 22% of the kids incurred injuries with slightly more than 1% getting severe concussions while in the non-checking league 9% of the kids incurred injuries with .4% getting severe concussions. Despite this you are still completely against the rule proposal? Again, what is best for the KIDS?frederick61 wrote: It compared two leagues with checking (in Alberta tracking 74 teams with 1,108 kids or an average of 15 players per team) and one with no checking (in Quebec tracking 76 teams with 1,046 players average of under 14 players on a team). The study assumes that the kids are peewee ages (11-13) and does not report on the actual age of the kids.
The study documents the Alberta league that allowed checking with having 241 injuries and “14 having endured severe concussions” and the Quebec league with having 91 injuries and “4 having endured severe concussions.
It's not legal checks that are causing the majority of the injuries....what's causing them are hits that ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!
What's best for the kids, is for them to be well-accustomed to checking BEFORE they play their first Bantam game....otherwise you'll see the injuries SKYROCKET, IMO....
Dark, I don't think what's best for the kids is the issue- of course we all want that. It's the path we take to get there is the issue.
Fred is a passionate hockey guy that's just giving us some info to chew on. (thanks, Fred). These studies are ok but not something to go all in on.
Do the global warming studies ring any bells, beware of scientists with agendas. And look at polls, depending on how you phrase the question, you can pretty much shape the result you desire.
Again, the common sense answer to this issue is take a step back for a year on this. Educate and enforce the rules already in place. Spend the money to train refs- with special emphasis on the younger refs. Alot of times it's HS kids reffing squirts. Help the coaches to educate proper technique. Let the kids play for a year or two. Gather data and do a proper study with many people involved. If it is determined concussions
are still a serious problem, then I think we'll all be on board for a change.
Fred is a passionate hockey guy that's just giving us some info to chew on. (thanks, Fred). These studies are ok but not something to go all in on.
Do the global warming studies ring any bells, beware of scientists with agendas. And look at polls, depending on how you phrase the question, you can pretty much shape the result you desire.
Again, the common sense answer to this issue is take a step back for a year on this. Educate and enforce the rules already in place. Spend the money to train refs- with special emphasis on the younger refs. Alot of times it's HS kids reffing squirts. Help the coaches to educate proper technique. Let the kids play for a year or two. Gather data and do a proper study with many people involved. If it is determined concussions
are still a serious problem, then I think we'll all be on board for a change.
-
Toomuchtoosoon
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm
Energy does not apply here, but rather momentum. That equation is mv=mv. Mass and the center of gravity of the colliding bodies determines who wins most of the time. That equation gets more unbalanced at bantam. The missing part of the study is what are the injury rates of bantams between the two groups. If there was not a predetermined outcome, they should have studied the respective bantam groups to see if there was also a difference.I want to pause to review simple physics that govern any collision; force (ability to deliver a hit hard enough that can cause concussions) is equal to the mass (the size of the kid) multiplied by acceleration squared (the speed at which the kid is skating). The faster a kid skates, the harder will be the hit and because the speed is squared (the product of speed X speed), it is a bigger contributor to the force (the hard hit) then size.
However a small mass (kid) absorbing a hard hit is more likely to be driven in the opposite direction regardless who hits him. That was one of the study’s major conclusions; “there is increased risk for injury in players who are in the lowest 25th percentile by weight”. It does not state age as the risk, but states weight.
Need some objectivity before a decision is made.
I started my post by saying "from a pure numbers perspective," which in no way meant those numbers are 100% conclusive one way or another. I'm not discrediting what Fred adds to the conversation and I think both sides being represented is needed, but he does have a bias along with everyone else.Intheslot wrote:Dark, I don't think what's best for the kids is the issue- of course we all want that. It's the path we take to get there is the issue.
Fred is a passionate hockey guy that's just giving us some info to chew on. (thanks, Fred). These studies are ok but not something to go all in on.
Do the global warming studies ring any bells, beware of scientists with agendas. And look at polls, depending on how you phrase the question, you can pretty much shape the result you desire.
Again, the common sense answer to this issue is take a step back for a year on this. Educate and enforce the rules already in place. Spend the money to train refs- with special emphasis on the younger refs. Alot of times it's HS kids reffing squirts. Help the coaches to educate proper technique. Let the kids play for a year or two. Gather data and do a proper study with many people involved. If it is determined concussions
are still a serious problem, then I think we'll all be on board for a change.
As you said, you can shape the results of data gathered to look the way you want. So I don't see how waiting a year and then gathering data after supposed changes are made is going to make any difference. The people adamantly against the rule change are still going to find their reasons and vice versa. Sure there might be a few objective minds on each side that could change but overall I think the debate would remain unchanged. If this is something that USAH has tried in the past and now feels it may be appropriate to change again how can people say it just came out of the blue? That would indicate to me that this issue is something they've been concerned about for quite some time and it appears there has been quite a bit of reserach done on the topic.
Regardless of whether the change goes through or not the "sky is falling" prediction from either side will not come true. People will adapt and hockey will go on.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
The physics that governs peewee A level hockey and peewee B/C level hockey are the same and none of the Canadian studies have studied those levels concurrently to see if the two levels produce the same level of injuries, particularly in regard to concussions.
I believe such a study comparing peewee levels, especially done in Minnesota, would prove that peewee A hockey would have significantly more serious injuries then peewee B/C hockey.
Such a study could conclude that peewee A hockey would benefit from reduced injuries by eliminating checking, but that at the peewee B/C level it could be statistically insignificant. In Minnesota, we have approximately 100 peewee A teams or 1400 kids playing at the A level. That’s equal to the number of kids playing in the Alberta or Quebec Leagues on which the Calgary Study based its conclusions.
If the Calgary Study results are an indication of the number of serious concussions per 1,100 kids, then a Minnesota based study would confirm that. If we accept legislation now, it will impact all peewee age players (around 9,000 to 10,000 kids). We would be changing the rules to avoid 10 serious concussions.
Such a study could add the ages of kids into the mix and would provide an easy way to account for acceleration to determine if the speed of the game is real cause. Simply put, comparing A level hockey with B/C level can allow analysis for youth hockey that eliminates variables. It would do this by comparing time (speed of play) between the two levels as a substitute for acceleration with the assumption that mass (70-200 pound kids) will exist in similar numbers at the B/C level.
As people have pointed out on this thread, girl’s hockey has no checking, but has more concussions. If speed is the problem at the peewee level, then eliminating rules designed to slow the game down like checking would increase the number of concussions, especially the way Minnesota youth hockey is played. Shouldn’t we know that?
I believe such a study comparing peewee levels, especially done in Minnesota, would prove that peewee A hockey would have significantly more serious injuries then peewee B/C hockey.
Such a study could conclude that peewee A hockey would benefit from reduced injuries by eliminating checking, but that at the peewee B/C level it could be statistically insignificant. In Minnesota, we have approximately 100 peewee A teams or 1400 kids playing at the A level. That’s equal to the number of kids playing in the Alberta or Quebec Leagues on which the Calgary Study based its conclusions.
If the Calgary Study results are an indication of the number of serious concussions per 1,100 kids, then a Minnesota based study would confirm that. If we accept legislation now, it will impact all peewee age players (around 9,000 to 10,000 kids). We would be changing the rules to avoid 10 serious concussions.
Such a study could add the ages of kids into the mix and would provide an easy way to account for acceleration to determine if the speed of the game is real cause. Simply put, comparing A level hockey with B/C level can allow analysis for youth hockey that eliminates variables. It would do this by comparing time (speed of play) between the two levels as a substitute for acceleration with the assumption that mass (70-200 pound kids) will exist in similar numbers at the B/C level.
As people have pointed out on this thread, girl’s hockey has no checking, but has more concussions. If speed is the problem at the peewee level, then eliminating rules designed to slow the game down like checking would increase the number of concussions, especially the way Minnesota youth hockey is played. Shouldn’t we know that?
I believe the study referenced was pretty throughly debunked in a different thread because once the ice time was factored in the 2 groups were within or just barely outside the statistical margin of error. Also the evidence of concussions was almost soley anecdotal with no set criteria for a diagnosis. In general terms these were studies done to show an outcome that was already determined.
I'm not toally against a checking ban either, just against the way this whole thing is being done.
I'm not toally against a checking ban either, just against the way this whole thing is being done.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2560
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
-
ilike2score
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:00 am
checking
I always have been in favor of checking as part of the game of hockey. My viewpoint has now changed since my son has now had three concussions and one broken wrist in the last year of playing hockey. None of these injuries would have happened if checking were disallowed.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
Re: checking
Sorry to hear that. Were the injuries the result of a "legal" check or a check that resulted in a penalty? I have a small player and am conflicted. I don't want him to get hurt by an illegal check, but I don't want the physical aspect of the game removed either.ilike2score wrote:I always have been in favor of checking as part of the game of hockey. My viewpoint has now changed since my son has now had three concussions and one broken wrist in the last year of playing hockey. None of these injuries would have happened if checking were disallowed.
Solving all of hockey's problems since Feb 2009.
-
The Other Bash Brother
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:08 pm
Re: checking
Your kid could still get hurt is checking were not allowed.ilike2score wrote:I always have been in favor of checking as part of the game of hockey. My viewpoint has now changed since my son has now had three concussions and one broken wrist in the last year of playing hockey. None of these injuries would have happened if checking were disallowed.
Murder is not allowed yet it still happens.
-
ilike2score
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:00 am
-
the_juiceman
- Posts: 369
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:17 am
Re: checking
maybe it's time to try another sport?HockeyDad41 wrote:Sorry to hear that. Were the injuries the result of a "legal" check or a check that resulted in a penalty? I have a small player and am conflicted. I don't want him to get hurt by an illegal check, but I don't want the physical aspect of the game removed either.ilike2score wrote:I always have been in favor of checking as part of the game of hockey. My viewpoint has now changed since my son has now had three concussions and one broken wrist in the last year of playing hockey. None of these injuries would have happened if checking were disallowed.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
Re: checking
Might be.the_juiceman wrote:maybe it's time to try another sport?HockeyDad41 wrote:Sorry to hear that. Were the injuries the result of a "legal" check or a check that resulted in a penalty? I have a small player and am conflicted. I don't want him to get hurt by an illegal check, but I don't want the physical aspect of the game removed either.ilike2score wrote:I always have been in favor of checking as part of the game of hockey. My viewpoint has now changed since my son has now had three concussions and one broken wrist in the last year of playing hockey. None of these injuries would have happened if checking were disallowed.
Solving all of hockey's problems since Feb 2009.