Pee Wee Checking Debate

[observer]

JSR,

Very wisely stated. Just make the calls.

I never understood where this goofy idea of banning checking even came from. The game is already evolving beautifully (except for Shattuck). I attended high school games a few years ago where the boxes were full of penalized players. I attended some high school games this year where zero penalties were called. I find it unusual where the players have learned to play the game correctly (stay out of the box and have a chance to win the game) but leadership can't figure it out. Coach correctly, and ref correctly, and there's no problem.

Coaches, you will never win a game shorthanded.

Refs, make the call.

[O-townClown]

Is it me or would USA Hockey have done themselves a big favor that instead of writing this rule as "banning checking" at the pee wee level.

I agree completely that the communication was mishandled. It started out as "eliminate checking" and most people didn't take time to listen to the rest.

INCREASE CONTACT for Squirts and people would support it.

[observer]

JSR wrote:
Is it me or would USA Hockey have done themselves a big favor that instead of writing this rule as "banning checking" at the pee wee level.

This is not a sentence,

And, O-Town

I agree completely that the communication was mishandled. It started out as "eliminate checking" and most people didn't take time to listen to the rest.

What are you saying?

[goldy313]

I think it started out as a proposal to eliminate checking ala one of the Canadian leagues, the pushback got USA Hockey to back peddle somewhat and hence the confusion. Their wording is still confusing and I think really puts refs, especially younger and newer ones, in a really tough spot.

I think Minnesota can be ahead of the curve by just implementing points of empasis regarding illegal hits and holding firm on them. Much like football has done with spearing, i.e. once the point came across that spearing is a safety issue coaches, players, and officials all ended up on the same page to the point that even though spearing is a 15 yard penalty people accept is as a safety point and are coached properly to eliminate that costly penalty.

[luckyEPDad]

Totally agree. Now the picture is so confused that nobody really knows what they want and worst of all nobody really trusts them to be after what they say they want. I think they need to scrap it and start over. Come out with a unified (not a Facebook advertisement of what they want to ram through) central point and prove it. If they came out and said that we have a problem with head injuries so after looking into it we are going to make any head contact a major penalty I think it would have been supported across the board and if they caught any blow back at all it would have been from not implementing it on the spot and why wait till fall of 2011..... The rules that they have in place now can protect the kids if they are enforced. Way too often I see refs (old and young) who let stuff go in the belief that they want to let them play the game. I am not sure that the data they are trying to use will even support what they want to do with it without some creative statistical analysis. Call the penalty, kick out the repeat offenders, lay the rules down before the season starts in simple straight forward words and pictures and protect the kids.

Have you read the literature or listened to any of the pod casts at USA Hockey? I don't think so, because your interpretation is far different than mine.

This is not about safety. The original purpose of the proposed change was to promote development. It was perceived that players were treating the puck like a hot potato because they were fearful of getting hit. I don't know how prevalent this is, but I have seen many players who never carry the puck and never try to develop plays, so I know it is an issue. It was stated that the proposed change will promote skills development for larger, stronger kids who could no longer use intimidation as a crutch to prop up their weak skating or stick handling.

As crusaders are like to do, proponents of the rule change began searching for evidence to support their cause. It was then that they stumbled across the concussion data and the Canada checking report. I don't know this as a fact, but the literature sure has this feel. The safety concerns don't really fit in with the proposal as USA Hockey is not planning to remove contact, but rather to spread out its introduction over a longer period (actually introducing body contact at an earlier age).

It isn't reasonable to expect USA Hockey to present an even handed discussion of both sides of this issue. In their view it only has one hand. Kids are dropping out of hockey or not reaching their full potential because they are afraid of becoming a bloody smudge on the boards. What evidence can they provide that would convince you? Should they do an experiment with controls? I don't think they are that sophisticated, and who gets to be the guinea pigs? How about polling data? That could document the fear, but doesn't provide any support for the skills development argument. Do you really need to see polling data to know that kids are afraid of getting lit up on the ice? Anyone who goes to a B or C tournament can see plenty of evidence that this is common.

I think a phased introduction to checking is a great idea. Checking is a nuanced skill that requires a lot of physical and mental development. Knowing how to check isn't very useful if you don't know when to check. And unlike stick handling it has great potential to cause injury to yourself and others if done incorrectly.

Are injuries at bantam level going to increase because of the rule change? Possibly, for the first couple of years. It might be wise to grandfather the current crop of PW players and start working on more body contact with squirts right away. Once we start seeing players who have been through the development cycle injuries should drop dramatically. If the change works as intended we'll see bantam players who are better skaters, better play makers, and who check to gain advantage (there will likely be a lot less checking overall).

If the rule passes it will be a grand experiment.

[InigoMontoya]

This is not about safety. The original purpose of the proposed change was to promote development.

As crusaders are like to do, proponents of the rule change began searching for evidence to support their cause. It was then that they stumbled across the concussion data and the Canada checking report.

This is the first I've seen this interpretation.

[old goalie85]

No pol-GREAT POST!!!

[TriedThat2]

Thank you NPC, for a top ten (maybe even higher) post.

[JSR]

Totally agree. Now the picture is so confused that nobody really knows what they want and worst of all nobody really trusts them to be after what they say they want. I think they need to scrap it and start over. Come out with a unified (not a Facebook advertisement of what they want to ram through) central point and prove it. If they came out and said that we have a problem with head injuries so after looking into it we are going to make any head contact a major penalty I think it would have been supported across the board and if they caught any blow back at all it would have been from not implementing it on the spot and why wait till fall of 2011..... The rules that they have in place now can protect the kids if they are enforced. Way too often I see refs (old and young) who let stuff go in the belief that they want to let them play the game. I am not sure that the data they are trying to use will even support what they want to do with it without some creative statistical analysis. Call the penalty, kick out the repeat offenders, lay the rules down before the season starts in simple straight forward words and pictures and protect the kids.

Have you read the literature or listened to any of the pod casts at USA Hockey? I don't think so, because your interpretation is far different than mine.

This is not about safety. The original purpose of the proposed change was to promote development. It was perceived that players were treating the puck like a hot potato because they were fearful of getting hit. I don't know how prevalent this is, but I have seen many players who never carry the puck and never try to develop plays, so I know it is an issue. It was stated that the proposed change will promote skills development for larger, stronger kids who could no longer use intimidation as a crutch to prop up their weak skating or stick handling.

As crusaders are like to do, proponents of the rule change began searching for evidence to support their cause. It was then that they stumbled across the concussion data and the Canada checking report. I don't know this as a fact, but the literature sure has this feel. The safety concerns don't really fit in with the proposal as USA Hockey is not planning to remove contact, but rather to spread out its introduction over a longer period (actually introducing body contact at an earlier age).

It isn't reasonable to expect USA Hockey to present an even handed discussion of both sides of this issue. In their view it only has one hand. Kids are dropping out of hockey or not reaching their full potential because they are afraid of becoming a bloody smudge on the boards. What evidence can they provide that would convince you? Should they do an experiment with controls? I don't think they are that sophisticated, and who gets to be the guinea pigs? How about polling data? That could document the fear, but doesn't provide any support for the skills development argument. Do you really need to see polling data to know that kids are afraid of getting lit up on the ice? Anyone who goes to a B or C tournament can see plenty of evidence that this is common.

I think a phased introduction to checking is a great idea. Checking is a nuanced skill that requires a lot of physical and mental development. Knowing how to check isn't very useful if you don't know when to check. And unlike stick handling it has great potential to cause injury to yourself and others if done incorrectly.

Are injuries at bantam level going to increase because of the rule change? Possibly, for the first couple of years. It might be wise to grandfather the current crop of PW players and start working on more body contact with squirts right away. Once we start seeing players who have been through the development cycle injuries should drop dramatically. If the change works as intended we'll see bantam players who are better skaters, better play makers, and who check to gain advantage (there will likely be a lot less checking overall).

If the rule passes it will be a grand experiment.

Weird, they must be trying to cover that angle up big time now. Here is a link to the proposal that is part of the USA Hockey meeting agenda:

http://usahockey.cachefly.net/Meetings/ ... Report.pdf
Note this is part of the "player safety and equipment" part of the agenda and there are ADM and Development agendas but no where in those agenda areas do you find this proposed rule change. Weird....

[luckyEPDad]

This is not about safety. The original purpose of the proposed change was to promote development.

As crusaders are like to do, proponents of the rule change began searching for evidence to support their cause. It was then that they stumbled across the concussion data and the Canada checking report.

This is the first I've seen this interpretation.

This I got from a USA Hockey Magazine podcast titled "How the Checking Rule Change Proposal Came Aboutl". You don't have to listen long as it is discussed in the first few minutes.

[luckyEPDad]

Weird, they must be trying to cover that angle up big time now. Here is a link to the proposal that is part of the USA Hockey meeting agenda:

http://usahockey.cachefly.net/Meetings/ ... Report.pdf
Note this is part of the "player safety and equipment" part of the agenda and there are ADM and Development agendas but no where in those agenda areas do you find this proposed rule change. Weird....

My interpretation is some think this is the best way to pass the proposal. Hockey concussions are in the news. Parents are afraid of the child being injured. Play on their fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD = effective political ploy.

I should be open to the possibility that proponents were so swayed by the Canadian checking report and hockey concussion data that safety became their new focus. Safety and development aren't mutually exclusive.

[nofinish]

luckyEP,
In making the assumption you are from Eden Prarie, have you seen your Bantam A team lately?
Many players on that team (and others) are great skaters, great playmakers, and they know how to check to gain advantage. Checking in peewees hasn't seemed to be a deterent to their development.

Better enforcement of current rules by refs and better education of coaches so they can teach would help your scared kid at the B & C levels.

There is nothing wrong with the way things currenlty are in MN. This is evident by the number of kids that go on to play at higher levels past high school. Maybe the "grand experiment" is needed elsewhere in the country but here we are doing just fine.

[JSR]

Weird, they must be trying to cover that angle up big time now. Here is a link to the proposal that is part of the USA Hockey meeting agenda:

http://usahockey.cachefly.net/Meetings/ ... Report.pdf
Note this is part of the "player safety and equipment" part of the agenda and there are ADM and Development agendas but no where in those agenda areas do you find this proposed rule change. Weird....

My interpretation is some think this is the best way to pass the proposal. Hockey concussions are in the news. Parents are afraid of the child being injured. Play on their fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD = effective political ploy.

I should be open to the possibility that proponents were so swayed by the Canadian checking report and hockey concussion data that safety became their new focus. Safety and development aren't mutually exclusive.

True. Although we've discussed that the word development in and of itself is a pretty nebulous and undefined term and one good poster even brought up the question of "developed for what?......". I see checking as a skill, a skilll to be honed in practice but also executed and used in games no differently than skating, stick handling, passing or shooting. Again the push back comes from the idea that they are "banning" it in pee wee's where that skill can be started to be honed the best in that age category, and also because they keep givig us examples of checks that would become illegal under the new rule, except the overwhelming majority fo the examples are already illegal so why not just do a better job of enforcing the rules yuo have now? It's like government constantly passing new laws like the "texting while driving law", why is this law necessary when we already have laws for "inattentive driving", makes no sense. Better coaching, better ref & coach training and better enforcement of current rules, MAYBE as part of the training of refs for the enforcement on the ice we teach a slightly more conservative interpretation so the refs stop "letting things go" and "allowing them to play".

[luckyEPDad]

luckyEP,
In making the assumption you are from Eden Prarie, have you seen your Bantam A team lately?
Many players on that team (and others) are great skaters, great playmakers, and they know how to check to gain advantage. Checking in peewees hasn't seemed to be a deterent to their development.

Better enforcement of current rules by refs and better education of coaches so they can teach would help your scared kid at the B & C levels.

There is nothing wrong with the way things currenlty are in MN. This is evident by the number of kids that go on to play at higher levels past high school. Maybe the "grand experiment" is needed elsewhere in the country but here we are doing just fine.

There is definately a lot wrong with the way things are. Look at how fast the numbers drop off as age goes up. Less participation leads to less interest. Attendance is dropping at games. Way more kids go to basketball and football games than hockey games. Monster co-ops form just to have a team that is competative. Outdoor rinks are often empty. Hockey in Minnesota is on a downward slide. Tradition can maintain it for a while, but tradition only lasts if you create new players to uphold it.

NPC - Don't be nasty. This is a hot issue, but no need to get personnal with someone you don't even know.

[luckyEPDad]

I fail to see how changing the checking schedule makes hockey harder or easier. As in all sports the degree of difficulty is determined by your opponent. If we agree that better competition makes you a better player, then we should all want better competition. USA Hockey's proposal is an attempt to provide better competition. It is not social engineering to make hockey easier for wimps.

I see a lot of PW and bantam games burning off my volunteer hours at tournaments. The checking is horrible. Too much at the wrong time and usually for the wrong reasons. It is a skill that doesn't appear to be well integrated with the rest of the game. At PW level I see a lot of kids who play hot potato with the puck. They don't even look when passing as they're in such a hurry to get rid of the thing. Two problems, possibly one solution?

A more systematic approach makes sense to me. Get kids used to contact earlier. As they progress, add more contact at a rate just beyod their comfort level. Enough to push them, but not so much as to push them away. Right now we teach kids to smash into each other at PW level, then teach them to play hockey, while smashing into each other, as bantams. Doesn't it make more sense to learn to play hockey first, then learn how to do it with checking?

[observer]

I've never seen a football player that has a problem with checking. It's because they're used to hitting and know how to deliver a hit and also take a hit. Sign your kid up for football.

[JSR]

I fail to see how changing the checking schedule makes hockey harder or easier. As in all sports the degree of difficulty is determined by your opponent. If we agree that better competition makes you a better player, then we should all want better competition. USA Hockey's proposal is an attempt to provide better competition. It is not social engineering to make hockey easier for wimps.

I see a lot of PW and bantam games burning off my volunteer hours at tournaments. The checking is horrible. Too much at the wrong time and usually for the wrong reasons. It is a skill that doesn't appear to be well integrated with the rest of the game. At PW level I see a lot of kids who play hot potato with the puck. They don't even look when passing as they're in such a hurry to get rid of the thing. Two problems, possibly one solution?

A more systematic approach makes sense to me. Get kids used to contact earlier. As they progress, add more contact at a rate just beyod their comfort level. Enough to push them, but not so much as to push them away. Right now we teach kids to smash into each other at PW level, then teach them to play hockey, while smashing into each other, as bantams. Doesn't it make more sense to learn to play hockey first, then learn how to do it with checking?

There is one small problem with the reasoning in man of your posts. You talk about retention but the problem is this proposed change will NOT increase retnetion at any statistically significant level. How do I know this, I know this because ALL sportzs, in fact ALL activities in this age group see almost the exact same drop off. Why is this you ask, it's simple, it is for a couple of reasons, #1 this is the age kids start using their own minds and making up their own minds on what they want to do and many who have played hockey because mom or dad want them to no longer are willing to do so. #2 This si also the age where kids have to pair down the number of sports/activities they are in. THere are a ton of kids who up until the pee wee age group that were playing both basketball and hockey in the winter, or wrestling, or whatever, they now have to choose ONE, same with fall sprots, they can no longer play both football and soccer, it just is not feasible because of scheduling and team committment etc..... Sure a very very small percentage quit because this is when checking begins and they do not like contact but that percentage is so small that it won;t help the retention numbers enough to matter.

As for the kids who play hot potato with the puck because they are afraid to get hit, a majoirty of them will still be doing that in bantams only then the hits will be harder and the game will be faster. You could argue that it is best that those kids get a dose of it in pee wees befoe they become bantams so they can decide whether or not to subject themselve sto it in bantams, both aruments are valid in that regard.

I agree with a few things you have said but the reality is alot of what you said won't happen, it's idealistic but not realistic.

[darkhorse]

Lucky, was not getting personal with you or attacking you but was (to be honest) attacking your point of view. I don't know if you have a 4 foot tall basketball kid but if you and and he is having those troubles then I guess I got personal and I apologize. Your ideas about the social engineering of hockey though are scary. You (whether you want to or not) are representing a veiw that I think has to be attacked and stopped if possible. Your view on what needs to be done with hockey will not help further the cause of American youth playing hockey at higher levels since the rest of the world (particularly our friends to the north) are taking the opposite approach. What you want to do is to scale down the Algebra content because it are hard for some kids and yet you expect all kids to move on and be good at Calculus, won't work.

And this is not heated or nasty really. There are two groups of people here and we have remained pretty civil. You want to see nasty put a post in which your main point is that you think that AAA hockey needs to be started in MN. Use the fact that if AAA came here the increased competition for players would be good for Association Hockey as an argument. Better yet, take the stand with this bunch that association hockey is a thing of the past and that even thought it worked for you "back in the day" in today's world with the increased mobility, numbers of kids and dollars involved it has to evolve or it will perish. Now those get heated and nasty............. this line is not nasty.

NPC, I understand your argument but I don't think it is as black and white as you're making it out to be. Most of the people on here that I see arguing against this proposal seem to assume that this would 100% remove checking from the Peewee level.....checking wouldn't be taught, discussed, or shown at all until Bantams. That just doesn't seem to be the case.

Whether the reasoning used is reducing concussions, making the sport "safer", or getting less kids to quit I think we have to have their best interests in mind. I fully agree the rules in place need to be enforced more strictly. But how many of the same people that are calling for that to happen would be the first to complain that all the penalties being called are disrupting the flow of the game or say "come on, let them play......this is hockey!" Sure the right rules may be in place but without hitting the public over the head and getting their attention nothing will change. Does it require a drastic change in the rules? I don't know but at least it is getting everyone's attention with both sides of the argument coming up with ways to find a solution.

[spin-o-rama]

How about this then? Rather than remove something that has been a part of the game and that is an agreed upon legitimate tool when used properly we teach the kids how to use it? We start teaching the basics, we show them the right way to do it and show how it is used the best. We show the kids that a bump and grind is better than a hit because it throws your opponent off stride and you get the puck? We show them that when you go for that big ESPN circus hit and miss your goalie gets really mad at you cause there is at least an odd man rush and more likely a 2 on 0 coming at him or her? You and I agree, checking is a tool of the trade. Rather than remove it because it is not being used properly how about we teach it right?

Your comments are very much in line with the proposal. You really ought to read it.

[InigoMontoya]

I've read it, and I've read what NPC has written. Spin, if you honestly think NPC and USAH are on the same page, then why is USAH calling it a checking ban? If you're just trying to be sarcastic, that's fine, too - just disregard.

[spin-o-rama]

I've read it, and I've read what NPC has written. Spin, if you honestly think NPC and USAH are on the same page, then why is USAH calling it a checking ban? If you're just trying to be sarcastic, that's fine, too - just disregard.

USAH did a terrible job presenting the proposal, starting with the title.
NPC and others have have judged the book by its poor cover.

I'm not saying that getting past the cover page will make it Kumbaya all around. But there is a lot more common ground than people think.

[JSR]

How about this then? Rather than remove something that has been a part of the game and that is an agreed upon legitimate tool when used properly we teach the kids how to use it? We start teaching the basics, we show them the right way to do it and show how it is used the best. We show the kids that a bump and grind is better than a hit because it throws your opponent off stride and you get the puck? We show them that when you go for that big ESPN circus hit and miss your goalie gets really mad at you cause there is at least an odd man rush and more likely a 2 on 0 coming at him or her? You and I agree, checking is a tool of the trade. Rather than remove it because it is not being used properly how about we teach it right?

Your comments are very much in line with the proposal. You really ought to read it.

I've read the propsoal and watched the videos, while I agree with many parts it is not in line with my views 100% nor do I think it's in line with NPC's either 100%, it's the 20% differentiation that is the problem

[Deep Breath]

[quote="JSR"][quote="spin-o-rama"][quote="No Political Connections"]
How about this then? Rather than remove something that has been a part of the game and that is an agreed upon legitimate tool when used properly we teach the kids how to use it? We start teaching the basics, we show them the right way to do it and show how it is used the best. We show the kids that a bump and grind is better than a hit because it throws your opponent off stride and you get the puck? We show them that when you go for that big ESPN circus hit and miss your goalie gets really mad at you cause there is at least an odd man rush and more likely a 2 on 0 coming at him or her? You and I agree, checking is a tool of the trade. Rather than remove it because it is not being used properly how about we teach it right? [/quote]
Your comments are very much in line with the proposal. You really ought to read it.[/quote]



I've read the propsoal and watched the videos, while I agree with many parts it is not in line with my views 100% nor do I think it's in line with NPC's either 100%, it's the 20% differentiation that is the problem[/quote]


Uh...when I started posting on this forum I was told that there would be no math...

[RsmtMoose]

Let’s put a stripe on the helmet for those players that are too big and bright yellow jerseys on the players you can’t check at all. Some issues are black and white and we should not have to change or compromise on checking. Hockey = fast = physical = checking = fun. I loved playing hockey as a peewee and midget because we could check. It is part of the game. I don’t remember being taught how to check, ever. At that age (peewee and up) you know when you are being cheap with an elbow … We knew the rules and played by them or found ourselves in the penalty box if you didn’t. Some of my fondest memories have to do with checking or getting checked. If I have to tell my kid he can check for 4 more years, he may quit hockey and go play football. Oh yeah, they’ll make him put a stripe on his helmet and tell him he can’t touch the football because he’s too big.

[RsmtMoose]

Sorry. If I have to tell my kid he CAN'T check for 4 more years, he may quit hockey and go play football.