Pee Wee Checking Debate

[luckyEPDad]

Let's be harsh here, hockey is not for everybody. It takes a certain body type, skill set, mind set and opportunity to play it.

Is that body type like Brian Gionta who at 5'7" is shorter than my 14 year old daughter, or Zdeno Chara at 6'9"? Is the skill set like like that of Gretzky who has been described as having "unimpressive stature, strength and speed"?

[old goalie85]

They had cecking when they were pee-wees.

[Quasar]

[49 Alex Bolduc 25 6-1 178 L Montreal, Quebec 6/26/85
14 Alex Burrows 29 6-1 190 L Pincourt, Quebec 4/11/81
15 Tanner Glass 26 6-1 207 L Craven, Saskatchewan 11/29/83
17 Ryan Kesler 26 6-2 205 R Livonia, MI 8/31/84
27 Manny Malhotra 30 6-2 215 L Mississauga, Ontario 5/18/80
32 Joel Perrault 27 6-2 205 R Montreal, Quebec 4/6/83
37 Rick Rypien 26 5-10 181 R Coleman, Alberta 5/16/84
33 Henrik Sedin 30 6-2 192 L Ornskoldsvik, Sweden 9/26/80
LEFT WINGS
NO. NAME AGE HT WT SHOT BIRTH PLACE BIRTHDATE
21 Mason Raymond 25 6-0 165 L Calgary, Alberta 9/17/85
18 Peter Schaefer 33 6-1 185 L Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan 7/12/77
22 Daniel Sedin 30 6-1 185 L Ornskoldsvik, Sweden 9/26/80
13 Raffi Torres 29 6-0 216 L Toronto, Ontario 10/8/81
RIGHT WINGS
NO. NAME AGE HT WT SHOT BIRTH PLACE BIRTHDATE
34 Guillaume Desbiens 25 6-2 205 L Alma, Quebec 4/20/85
36 Jannik Hansen 24 6-1 201 R Herlev, Denmark 3/15/86
26 Mikael Samuelsson 33 6-2 211 R Mariefred, Sweden 12/23/76
DEFENSE
NO. NAME AGE HT WT SHOT BIRTH PLACE BIRTHDATE
41 Andrew Alberts 29 6-4 218 L Minneapolis, MN 6/30/81
4 Keith Ballard 27 5-11 208 L Baudette, MN 11/26/82
3 Kevin Bieksa 29 6-1 205 L Grimsby, Ontario 6/16/81
23 Alexander Edler 24 6-3 220 L Ostersund, Sweden 4/21/86
5 Christian Ehrhoff 28 6-2 200 L Moers, West Germany 7/6/82
2 Dan Hamhuis 27 6-1 209 L Smithers, B.C. 12/13/82
20 Ryan Parent 23 6-2 201 L Prince Albert, Saskatchewan 3/17/87
29 Aaron Rome 27 6-1 230 L Nesbitt, Manitoba 9/27/83
GOALIES
NO. NAME AGE HT WT SHOT BIRTH PLACE BIRTHDATE
1 Roberto Luongo 31 6-3 205 L Montreal, Quebec 4/4/79
35 Cory Schneider 24 6-2 202 L Salem, MA 3/18/86
Coach: Alain Vigneault

Wayne Douglas Gretzky

Centre, Shoots Left, 6' 185 lbs. Born, Brantford, Ontario January 26, 1961

[Quasar]

Let's be harsh here, hockey is not for everybody. It takes a certain body type, skill set, mind set and opportunity to play it.

Is that body type like Brian Gionta who at 5'7" is shorter than my 14 year old daughter, or Zdeno Chara at 6'9"? Is the skill set like like that of Gretzky who has been described as having "unimpressive stature, strength and speed"?

come on EP ... were smarter than that!!

[Quasar]

Is that body type like Brian Gionta who at 5'7" is shorter than my 14 year old daughter, or Zdeno Chara at 6'9"? Is the skill set like like that of Gretzky who has been described as having "unimpressive stature, strength and speed"?

come on EP ... were smarter than that!!

I think that I probably agree with lots more of what USAH wants on this deal than what you would think. I want safer hockey, I hate seeing my kids get hurt on the ice or against the boards and then have to watch them walk around in a fog for a couple of weeks having migraines and have their grades at school hit the dumpster. I have had kids get hurt playing hockey ranging from concussions to broken bones and bad sprains. It is part of life for them and for us. We do what we can to keep our kids safe in the world but we can't wrap them in bubble wrap and hire a body guard for them. What I do have a problem with is when cheap shot artists are allowed to keep on going because the refs won't make the call even when it happens right in front of them. I have seen it.

Where USAH and I differ greatly is our approach. I say Enforce the penalties that you have now. Make a point of emphasis against head contact and hammer the kids involved. Even those 6 foot plus kids who have what amounts to pretty inadvertent head contact with much shorter kids. Take the kid who does it by mistake and sit him in the box and then have his coach lay out what happened and why. Get that kid who for what ever reason (lanky and no body control, doesn't think, what ever) can't control it to control it. Take the kid who is a head hunter and has a history and get rid of him, for good. Send him to the box the first couple of times and then send him home. Keep him off the ice, maybe next year if you have grown up and gotten over the stupids.

USAH on the other hand wants to do it the other way, I think. Do we really know what they want? What is their end game? Their story has evolved a couple of times here. First it was remove checking and then when they caught blow back it was justified with some concussion study that eventually they released and the talk shifted to injury prevention. Someplace in there it was because kids were dropping out at the PeeWee level and it was because if checking so we need to get rid of checking. Then it was back to injury prevention now it is to make it so the kids will work on their skills more and become better skaters and they can do this without having to worry about getting blown up at mid ice or against the boards. What is it? The MOST worrisome thing of all is where is this headed? What happens when all of these wonderful puck handlers who are no longer afraid because they are now safe on the ice get to Bantams? I think that the first good hit (one that is now legal in Bantams) is gonna drop a very large percentage of them out of hockey. Now what??? Remove checking from Bantams? What is next? They (USAH) is trying to fix a series of issues that do exist. Kids drop out at PeeWee level. Some because of checking, some because of the travel, some because of having to choose between other sports and hockey, some because they sit up one morning and say "you know what I don't like this anymore, I quit". There are lots of issues and trying to ram a one size fits all "fix" wont' work, it will lead to more problems down the road. I say take the issues that you can fix and fix them one at a time. Some you can fix, some you can't.

Great post,

My take on all this is that USAH is looking at two levels of hockey. High performance , and everything else. The world outside Minnesota is starting to come together to make Tier 1 high performance clubs a reality.
Check out this link http://www.hphl.us/
What do you think?

[observer]

Quasar,

What about it?

I'm pretty sure we've read that no one will be excluded from a potential rule change. If it passes the Chicago Mission PeeWees won't be checking. This particular league is touting their relationship with USA Hockey right on the home page.

You've mentioned a couple of times you think PeeWees will be checking somewhere even if the rule is passed but I don't think that is correct. I believe if it passes no one checks until bantam.

Great post NPC. Refs need to do a better job of enforcing the rules currently in the book. No need for additional ones.

[Quasar]

Quasar,

What about it?

I'm pretty sure we've read that no one will be excluded from a potential rule change. If it passes the Chicago Mission PeeWees won't be checking. This particular league is touting their relationship with USA Hockey right on the home page.

You've mentioned a couple of times you think PeeWees will be checking somewhere even if the rule is passed but I don't think that is correct. I believe if it passes no one checks until bantam.

Great post NPC. Refs need to do a better job of enforcing the rules currently in the book. No need for additional ones.

I really don't have a clue.

I don't think high performance clubs will enter bantam play without having checked in peewee.

I haven't read, or looked at all the material being offered up by USAH, just my gut feeling.

For the record, I think checking should be allowed

[2legit2quitguy]

I'm just wondering how many kids are really concerned about this issue. It seems to me that the adults (typical) are the ones having the biggest issue with things. I have spoken to number of youth players & the vast majority could care less what changes are made. They just wanna play. Relax people, the game will be fine....the kids will be fine.

[InigoMontoya]

I'm just wondering how many kids are really concerned about this issue. It seems to me that the adults (typical) are the ones having the biggest issue with things. I have spoken to number of youth players & the vast majority could care less what changes are made. They just wanna play. Relax people, the game will be fine....the kids will be fine.

You are correct, the "care less" of that vast majority regarding checking would indicate that they are not afraid of being checked, they are not all whipped up to take someone's head off - those are feelings and behaviors that are learned from adults. The game was already fine...

[Quasar]

Quasar,

What about it?

I'm pretty sure we've read that no one will be excluded from a potential rule change. If it passes the Chicago Mission PeeWees won't be checking. This particular league is touting their relationship with USA Hockey right on the home page.

You've mentioned a couple of times you think PeeWees will be checking somewhere even if the rule is passed but I don't think that is correct. I believe if it passes no one checks until bantam.

Great post NPC. Refs need to do a better job of enforcing the rules currently in the book. No need for additional ones.

I really don't have a clue.

I don't think high performance clubs will enter bantam play without having checked in peewee.

I haven't read, or looked at all the material being offered up by USAH, just my gut feeling.

For the record, I think checking should be allowed

If I understand it right all USAH sanctioned hockey will have checking removed. I have always thought that the beginning of the end of the dominance of youth hockey by USAH would start in someplace like MN when that "rule too far" was put in. I figured it would be someplace with high numbers of kids who had enough who were disenfranchised and who's parents decided to split off and find another way, AAU or something like that. Maybe this is it. Maybe it is going to be the Belle Tire, Honey Backed, Russel Stovers of the world who say enough is enough. If that group that has formed the High Performance League splits off from USAH and goes their own way several things are going to happen. USAH is gonna get way more interested in what the "little people" have to say. AAA style hockey will come to a town near you very soon. Can you imagine the fertile picking grounds for somebody like that coming into MN with no USAH or MNH holding them back??? Yikes. When that happens there will be a huge shift that will occur including (I think) the end of association hockey as USAH and MN Hockey scramble to try to stop the top kids and even the middle kids from going over to the other side. This could really have some long term ramifications from this one little rule change that nobody (including USAH I think) really knows why they have to make.

We are sort of like those cavemen back in the day when one of them sat up and asked if Ugg had smoking coming out of his cave............. Potentially nothing will be the same after this happens.

Ok, I did a little research.
I just couldnt figure out why the new High Performance league was pimping the ADM, LTAD USA hockey model..

So I read the section of the LTAD that pertained to peewee's .

Technical Development:
Ensure motor learning issues are adopted into coaching practice
• This is the window of optimal trainability for peak skill development of core
hockey skills
• Emphasis is placed upon refining skating and puck control skills throughout the stage
with a clear focus on correct technical execution
o Agility in skating skills with and without the puck
o Refining edge control skills for balance and coordination
o Combine the refined skating skills with puck control skills (multi-tasking)
o Attacking skills, one-on-one and one-on-two or more defenders (one-on-three)
• Use small area games to applying core skills in decision making situations
5
• Added emphasis on passing and receiving skills should be incorporated at the 12 and
Under (Peewee) level with special concentration on receiving skills
• Added emphasis on shooting and scoring skills, including shooting off a pass (one
timing the puck)
• Body contact and angling basics should be refined at 10 & Under (Squirt)
• Body checking skills are introduced at 12 & Under (Peewee) including the ability to
deliver a check as well as receive a check (it is important not to overemphasize
checking as to detract from core hockey skills development)
• Offensive body positioning and puck protection skills
• Deception skills should be incorporated in all facets of the player’s development
o Skating: change of pace, change of direction, spins
o puck control: fakes and dekes on goalie
o passing: look off pass receiver, fake pass
o shooting: shoot off either foot, cadence – shoot in stride, camouflage - screen
shots and looking off shot, fake shot
Tactical Skills:
• Continue to encourage unstructured play at 10 & Under (Squirt),

So which is it? or as I suspect, Is it both? There is no way a kid can go into an HPC club at bantams with out knowing how to check. I think the ADM, LTAD, and HPC clubs will be split out as tier 1 clubs with the checking part of the LTAD. Everybody else will be non checking..
If this is the case , and Minnesota hockey buys into the no checking at peewee's they are disadvantaging Minnesota peewee's. If not, they need to introduce tier 1 into the Minnesota mix..

Where am I going wrong here?

[old goalie85]

Another post had Mn rostering pee-wees as minor bantams, thus getting around the rule change.

[Quasar]

Another post had Mn rostering pee-wees as minor bantams, thus getting around the rule change.

I saw that post. But I'm wondering about the High Performance clubs, and if USAH is looking at two tiers of hockey.

Do you think they will allow checking in peewee clubs that are following the ADM rules ?

What do you think of the new high performance league that's pulling together the tier 1 AAA clubs in Chicago and Detroit, as well as SSM.?

Why do you think Minnesota hockey is looking at AA and A ?

Anyone got any answers?

[frederick61]

Minneapolis Star had a fairly long article in the Wednesday sports page stating Minnesota Hockey opposes the peewee checking ban, but then surrounds the article with all the pro ban stuff that has been discounted. At least they stated Minnesota Hockey's reasons for the ban, but set the tone of the article as for the ban. I felt the writer took very little time to address the facts and just went with what was on the net probably at USA Hockey.

I want to thank Minnesota Hockey for taking the right stand and want to suggest again Minnesota Hockey consider splitting from USA Hockey. And I still wonder why nobody here or the Star reporter did not discuss USA Hockey's own self-insurance group that is doing very well financially, USA Hockey's management of the funds, and at least use it as a source of data to set the record straight.

[TriedThat2]

Fred,
Couldn't agree more, but what is going on with Tearse. This is the second time that he is publically going agains the MH BOD. That man's ego amazes me!

[old goalie85]

I feel the same way about U.S. hockey. Le's do our own thing. I bet N.Dakota, S. Dakota, and maybe Wisc will join us.

[observer]

but what is going on with Tearse.

Feeling guilty since his son has probably given more concussions than anyone I've watched in the last few years. The kid loves to hit.

[InigoMontoya]

GB58,
Could I interpret from your post that Mr. Tearse out punted his coverage and let an ego get in the way of fact? Doesn't MNH have a policy to prevent this type of stuff. I recall Mr. Elliott getting lambasted for using this forum as a sounding board.

I would imagine that the Coach in Chief stung a little from that one.
Not to mention calling out a colleague.
May be hard to explain at the next MH meeting.
You guys out in the cornfields provide a ton of entertainment.

[farmington14]

Seven games in and very disappointed with the “no checking “ rule. After not being sure what side of the fence I was on, I read as much as I could on the subject and watched the USA hockey videos which seem to do a great job of explaining what is legal vs. illegal. So my conclusion so far after seven games… not a single set of refs have gotten it right yet. Watched a game in Anoka, refs said upfront “no contact”, they completely misinterpreted the rule, the game was played with total “squirt” rules, those refs DID NOT watch the videos nor do they understand the new rule at all! The other games weren’t as bad but refs made very subjective calls and got it wrong to many times. My biggest fear has come true, this rule is completely confusing the refs and the players can’t play hockey because they aren’t sure what and what not is allowed from game to game. I understand that we don’t want the kids hurt, I get that as much as the next person, but this rule has gone too far and puts much too much pressure on the refs. I have already seen to many checking from behind 2-10 penalties, they were good calls for the most part, but the new rule does nothing to prevent this and other dangerous things from happening, all the new rule is doing is guaranteeing that neither team will ever get a “fair play” point this season even when they play a good clean game of hockey. In my opinion we should not be taking checking out of the game, but really enforce “intent to injure” stuff like open ice head down body blows, following through with a check to punish a player after puck is no longer in his possession, head blows, charging, cross checking, etc. I understand the goal of new rule, teach contact in squirts, let them start to use this contact in peewee’s and all of that good stuff, but it is not working so far! I would like to know how many kids actually get hurt or a concussion from a clean check? Maybe we should outlaw “tackle“ in youth football and only let them play “flag” until high school, seems that is what is happening with hockey now.

[ThePuckStopsHere]

Seven games in and very disappointed with the “no checking “ rule. After not being sure what side of the fence I was on, I read as much as I could on the subject and watched the USA hockey videos which seem to do a great job of explaining what is legal vs. illegal. So my conclusion so far after seven games… not a single set of refs have gotten it right yet. Watched a game in Anoka, refs said upfront “no contact”, they completely misinterpreted the rule, the game was played with total “squirt” rules, those refs DID NOT watch the videos nor do they understand the new rule at all! The other games weren’t as bad but refs made very subjective calls and got it wrong to many times. My biggest fear has come true, this rule is completely confusing the refs and the players can’t play hockey because they aren’t sure what and what not is allowed from game to game. I understand that we don’t want the kids hurt, I get that as much as the next person, but this rule has gone too far and puts much too much pressure on the refs. I have already seen to many checking from behind 2-10 penalties, they were good calls for the most part, but the new rule does nothing to prevent this and other dangerous things from happening, all the new rule is doing is guaranteeing that neither team will ever get a “fair play” point this season even when they play a good clean game of hockey. In my opinion we should not be taking checking out of the game, but really enforce “intent to injure” stuff like open ice head down body blows, following through with a check to punish a player after puck is no longer in his possession, head blows, charging, cross checking, etc. I understand the goal of new rule, teach contact in squirts, let them start to use this contact in peewee’s and all of that good stuff, but it is not working so far! I would like to know how many kids actually get hurt or a concussion from a clean check? Maybe we should outlaw “tackle“ in youth football and only let them play “flag” until high school, seems that is what is happening with hockey now.

Totally agree 100%, the four scrimmages I have seen have been a total joke.

Hey Refs LET THEM PLAY HOCKEY!!!!

With one hour games these refs are wasting so much time and money with the ticky tack BS calls.

Hey USA Hockey, Tough to develop hockey players when both teams are short handed over half the game

So far what I have seen it's a total mess!!!

[nofinish]

Refs are carrying the overly strict calls to bantam level as well. The two games I have witnessed rarely had 5 on 5 action. Just about any check where a kid had his head down (not seeing a check coming) has been called head contact. Good luck coaches.

[Shinbone_News]

I won't try to defend the new rules/enforcement, cause I'm back on the fence after reading about this from you all.

BUT seriously, let's be aware that rule changes ALWAYS take a little time right? I mean it's not even November yet??? Give folks a chance to implement change, rather than expecting overnight perfection???

I do wish there some way to make sure there was more consistency with refs, and just make the calls that are already in the books. Maybe they should be graded just like the kids? A, B, C???? Maybe the are???

[farmington14]

I won't try to defend the new rules/enforcement, cause I'm back on the fence after reading about this from you all.

BUT seriously, let's be aware that rule changes ALWAYS take a little time right? I mean it's not even November yet??? Give folks a chance to implement change, rather than expecting overnight perfection???

I do wish there some way to make sure there was more consistency with refs, and just make the calls that are already in the books. Maybe they should be graded just like the kids? A, B, C???? Maybe the are???

I hear what you are saying and notice I use the disclaimer “so far” a few times in my post. I just think that we have introduced a whole new level of complexity for the refs/coaches and the players. I agree it is much too early to pass judgment on the season or the new rule. I’m patient and maybe the rule will work itself out, but I’m afraid it will slowly lead to no contact “squirt” hockey at the peewee level which is not the intent at all, but I’m not sure the words “encourage contact with no checking” can properly be implemented on the same sheet of ice. I had the luxury of watching a bantam game right after a peewee game and I’m very scared for the first year bantam next year and the year after, most will have no clue how to check, but even more scary is the fact that they will have no clue on how to receive a check, how can the decision makers at USA hockey discount this fact? Forget about more concussions for first year bantams they will absolutely get killed by 200+ pound young men. And guess what that will lead to “no checking at the bantam level”, heck let’s just ban it from high school as well! Let’s face facts, hockey can be a dangerous sport and no rule is going to prevent that. I hope I’m wrong about all of this, but as of right now I have a really ugly outlook on this season.

[Deep Breath]

[quote="Shinbone_News"]I won't try to defend the new rules/enforcement, cause I'm back on the fence after reading about this from you all.

BUT seriously, let's be aware that rule changes ALWAYS take a little time right? I mean it's not even November yet??? Give folks a chance to implement change, rather than expecting overnight perfection???

I do wish there some way to make sure there was more consistency with refs, and just make the calls that are already in the books. Maybe they should be graded just like the kids? A, B, C???? Maybe the are???[/quote]


That's the whole problem with USA Hockey dumping this on the youth hockey world. They have now left the entire objective burden on the shoulders of the already over-harassed, under-appreciated refs (and no I am not a ref). Now these refs have to determine on the fly "Was that a check?," "Did his hands come up?", "Did his hand leave his stick?", "Was he playing the puck?", etc, etc etc. And, he has to make that determination on the fly. That should be going over real well with all of the extremely patient coaches, parents and kids we already have out there. Plus, what his opinion may be for a Tuesday night game, may be completely different from what the ref will be calling for the Thursday night game. Again, something that will be met with open arms by all of the above mentioned groups. Should be interesting to see what percentage of games even get finished in their 1-hour time slot due to the all of the "discussions" that will take place between refs and coaches.

[BadgerBob82]

I have watched two PW scrimmage/games. What I saw was Squirt hockey with hooking/slashing on steroids. I think the refs have Squirt rules in their head. Rather than Bantam rules without the big hit. Everyone knows what is a check. Nobody will know what will be called a check though.

Reminding me of the "Blue Puck" rule. Sounded great but poorly thought out and terrible packaging.

[ThePuckStopsHere]

I won't try to defend the new rules/enforcement, cause I'm back on the fence after reading about this from you all.

BUT seriously, let's be aware that rule changes ALWAYS take a little time right? I mean it's not even November yet??? Give folks a chance to implement change, rather than expecting overnight perfection???

I do wish there some way to make sure there was more consistency with refs, and just make the calls that are already in the books. Maybe they should be graded just like the kids? A, B, C???? Maybe the are???

It should not need a little time, it's common sense something I have not seen any of the games I have watched.

What I have see is fat old out of shape whistle happy refs wasting time and money and ruining a good Pee Wee A hockey game