Checking Skill Development Program approved

[O-townClown]

June 11, 2011

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - USA Hockey's Board of Directors overwhelmingly passed all aspects of the Progressive Checking Skill Development Program today during its 2011 Annual Congress.


The program includes the following elements:

It encourages more body contact in the pre-body checking age categories by providing more training and support for coaches and referees; and encouraging more legal body contact in the pre-body checking age categories through “Point of Emphasis” rule #1 passed by the Board.
It tightens the standard of play for intimidation hits in the legal body checking age categories. Beginning in the 2011-12 season, legal body checking in games will begin at the Bantam age level (ages 13-14).
Beginning in 2011-12, each USA Hockey coach will be required to take an age-specific training module which will provide training information consistent with long-term athlete and childhood development principles for the age category the coach will be engaged with. Each module will include training information for body contact and checking.
Each season, USA Hockey officials attend clinics that review points of emphasis relating to the standard of play. These 2011-12 clinics will focus on allowing more body contact consistent with the rules in pre-checking age categories and a tighter standard of play for roughing, cross-checking, boarding, charging, high-sticking and other intimidation hits in the legal body checking divisions.
USA Hockey will monitor the on-ice management of games with regular reports from local referee-in-chiefs, coach-in-chiefs and Association Coaching and Education (ACE) administrators to USA Hockey's national office staff in Colorado Springs.
USA Hockey will conduct research on the effect of the Progressive Checking Skill Development Program on risk reduction and skill development. The results of the research will be published when completed.
The Board also passed rules that prohibit any check that comes in contact with the head or neck. The goal of this rule is to make the player more responsible for actions that make contact to the head or neck similar to rules now in place for stick infractions to the head.


A goal of the Progressive Checking Skill Development Program is to enhance skill development consistent with the American Development Model and its long-term athlete development principles. Full details on proposal vote

[spin-o-rama]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking
3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

[Wildcathcky]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking
3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

I think time will tell if this is a "pro-checking" or not. I would rather have seen USA Hockey crack down on all the illegal and dangerous hits for a few years to see if that addressed the safety and development concerns. Now that open ice hits are out of the peewee game, it will be difficult to go back to the game as it once was. I hope this works out well, but I fear we'll see more injuries at the bantam level in three years and we could see the demise of girls hockey in many cities since the top girls will be tempted to play peewee.

[HockeyDad41]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking
3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

This will be interesting. I can see three levels of checking in hockey. The Twin Cities model in which every game is called like it is a girls game. The range model where hitting is allowed and encouraged and generally controlled and the Canadian model in which even the water boy on the end of the bench gets laid out a couple of times during the game. If this really does control the cheap shot artists and the head hunters it will be a good deal. Time will tell.

Made me laugh!

There's always the Choice League.

[JSR]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

Let's assume you are right spin and everything happens the way you laid it out. I have one question, what about the kids who are about to be first year pee wee's who did not get a year of checking like the 2nd year pee wees and the instruction that came with it AND also won't be getting the benefit of the body contact that will be taught and encouraged at the younger ages now. There is a one year age group/class that is sort of being hung out to dry a little bit here don't you think?

Don't you think it MIGHT have been more proactive to enact the rules of head hunting hits right away, and implement the other stuff starting with today's squirts and mites but allowing the current 1st and 2nd year pee wees to sort of continue under a the current rules, or atleast a slightly tweeked or enhanced version of them? I just think that age group is getting hosed a little for supposedly the "greater good"

[O-townClown]

I have one question, what about the kids who are about to be first year pee wee's who did not get a year of checking like the 2nd year pee wees and the instruction that came with it AND also won't be getting the benefit of the body contact that will be taught and encouraged at the younger ages now. There is a one year age group/class that is sort of being hung out to dry a little bit here don't you think?

They'll all quit.

[JSR]

I have one question, what about the kids who are about to be first year pee wee's who did not get a year of checking like the 2nd year pee wees and the instruction that came with it AND also won't be getting the benefit of the body contact that will be taught and encouraged at the younger ages now. There is a one year age group/class that is sort of being hung out to dry a little bit here don't you think?

They'll all quit.

Come on o-town, it's a legit question deserving of something better than an over the top over reaction. Even sacastically that's a stupid statement, of course they won't all quit on the other hand they aren't being given the same "benefits" those before and after them received. They are a bit of a gap or hole in the equation evenn when looked at through the best of intents.

[spin-o-rama]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

Let's assume you are right spin and everything happens the way you laid it out. I have one question, what about the kids who are about to be first year pee wee's who did not get a year of checking like the 2nd year pee wees and the instruction that came with it AND also won't be getting the benefit of the body contact that will be taught and encouraged at the younger ages now. There is a one year age group/class that is sort of being hung out to dry a little bit here don't you think?

Don't you think it MIGHT have been more proactive to enact the rules of head hunting hits right away, and implement the other stuff starting with today's squirts and mites but allowing the current 1st and 2nd year pee wees to sort of continue under a the current rules, or atleast a slightly tweeked or enhanced version of them? I just think that age group is getting hosed a little for supposedly the "greater good"

I think they'll be just fine. They'll have 2 years of practicing checking before having a game with full checking. That will make for a better transition than any of the 1 hour pre-season checking clinics.

Who knows? Maybe in 2 years all the PWA teams will be dominated by first year players.

[Quasar]

Minnesota Hockey has voted to ask for a 1 to 2 year exemption from the new USAH checking rule because of many concerns raised by members. The draft of their position is posted on the Minnesota hockey web site. Here is how the district directors described their board members opinions.

Director Mickus Dist (1) – 50% for and 50% against
Director Dornfeld Dist (3 – 4 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of USA position
Director Kephart Dist (5) – 11 against removing checking
Director Hewitt Dist (6) – 12 to 0 to keep checking
Director Rakness Dist 8 – 12 to 1 against rule changed
Director Christenson Dist (9) – split about 50-50 with most comments not enough time
Director Timm – Dist (10) -10 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of change
Director Hill – Dist (11) -all 9 in favor of USA Hockey proposal
Director Oleheiser Dist(12 ) – not in favor of removing checking.
Director Bushy Dist (15) – mixed feelings –leaning toward retaining checking

No comments listed for:

Michelle Brennan Dist (2)
Mark Jacobs Dist (4)
Mark Elliott Dist (16)

Not a done deal as far as Minnesota is concerned. One of the things mentioned in the draft is the pressure from for profit hockey in Minnesota, and the fact that this rule may push many people to consider something other than the current Minnesota model.

Also, I believe the Minnesota age rule with the July 1 cut off raises real concerns about 14 year olds with no game checking experience facing 6 foot 180 pound 16 year old bantams that have been checking for at least a year.

Read the draft . It gives a pretty clear idea of where Minnesota hockey is on this issue.

[JSR]

Minnesota Hockey has voted to ask for a 1 to 2 year exemption from the new USAH checking rule because of many concerns raised by members. The draft of their position is posted on the Minnesota hockey web site. Here is how the district directors described their board members opinions.

Director Mickus Dist (1) – 50% for and 50% against
Director Dornfeld Dist (3 – 4 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of USA position
Director Kephart Dist (5) – 11 against removing checking
Director Hewitt Dist (6) – 12 to 0 to keep checking
Director Rakness Dist 8 – 12 to 1 against rule changed
Director Christenson Dist (9) – split about 50-50 with most comments not enough time
Director Timm – Dist (10) -10 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of change
Director Hill – Dist (11) -all 9 in favor of USA Hockey proposal
Director Oleheiser Dist(12 ) – not in favor of removing checking.
Director Bushy Dist (15) – mixed feelings –leaning toward retaining checking

No comments listed for:

Michelle Brennan Dist (2)
Mark Jacobs Dist (4)
Mark Elliott Dist (16)

Not a done deal as far as Minnesota is concerned. One of the things mentioned in the draft is the pressure from for profit hockey in Minnesota, and the fact that this rule may push many people to consider something other than the current Minnesota model.

Also, I believe the Minnesota age rule with the July 1 cut off raises real concerns about 14 year olds with no game checking experience facing 6 foot 180 pound 16 year old bantams that have been checking for at least a year.

Read the draft . It gives a pretty clear idea of where Minnesota hockey is on this issue.

It's funny, MN Hockey, during it's proposed 1 to 2 year exemption, wants to basically implement a plan that sounds an aweful lot like what I proposed in another thread debating this issue. Huh.....

[O-townClown]

Come on o-town, it's a legit question deserving of something better than an over the top over reaction. Even sacastically that's a stupid statement, of course they won't all quit on the other hand they aren't being given the same "benefits" those before and after them received. They are a bit of a gap or hole in the equation evenn when looked at through the best of intents.

JSR:

If your scenario is justification to delay a rule change it is impossible to implement anything. Yeah, I guess some kids - in this case the 99s - go from non-check Sq to checking PW to new format PW to full-check Bantam.

They'll survive.

[jpiehl]

Does anyone know where to find the actual vote? I looked at USA Hockey and couldn't find it, just curious who the 12% that voted against it are. According to the twitter feeds from Saturday, Minnesota Hockey supports the rule change, but just didn't think there was enough time to implement it. Interesting, since all we heard before was that Minnesota opposed the rule change and the representatives were instructed to vote against it.

[NSHA Rules]

According to the Dave Margenau the President of MN Hockey, they will follow the USA Hockey Checking rule even though they don't agree with it.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

Minnesota Hockey has voted to ask for a 1 to 2 year exemption from the new USAH checking rule because of many concerns raised by members. The draft of their position is posted on the Minnesota hockey web site. Here is how the district directors described their board members opinions.

Director Mickus Dist (1) – 50% for and 50% against
Director Dornfeld Dist (3 – 4 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of USA position
Director Kephart Dist (5) – 11 against removing checking
Director Hewitt Dist (6) – 12 to 0 to keep checking
Director Rakness Dist 8 – 12 to 1 against rule changed
Director Christenson Dist (9) – split about 50-50 with most comments not enough time
Director Timm – Dist (10) -10 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of change
Director Hill – Dist (11) -all 9 in favor of USA Hockey proposal
Director Oleheiser Dist(12 ) – not in favor of removing checking.
Director Bushy Dist (15) – mixed feelings –leaning toward retaining checking

No comments listed for:

Michelle Brennan Dist (2)
Mark Jacobs Dist (4)
Mark Elliott Dist (16)

Not a done deal as far as Minnesota is concerned. One of the things mentioned in the draft is the pressure from for profit hockey in Minnesota, and the fact that this rule may push many people to consider something other than the current Minnesota model.

Also, I believe the Minnesota age rule with the July 1 cut off raises real concerns about 14 year olds with no game checking experience facing 6 foot 180 pound 16 year old bantams that have been checking for at least a year.

Read the draft . It gives a pretty clear idea of where Minnesota hockey is on this issue.

[Quasar]

According to the Dave Margenau the President of MN Hockey, they will follow the USA Hockey Checking rule even though they don't agree with it.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

Minnesota Hockey has voted to ask for a 1 to 2 year exemption from the new USAH checking rule because of many concerns raised by members. The draft of their position is posted on the Minnesota hockey web site. Here is how the district directors described their board members opinions.

Director Mickus Dist (1) – 50% for and 50% against
Director Dornfeld Dist (3 – 4 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of USA position
Director Kephart Dist (5) – 11 against removing checking
Director Hewitt Dist (6) – 12 to 0 to keep checking
Director Rakness Dist 8 – 12 to 1 against rule changed
Director Christenson Dist (9) – split about 50-50 with most comments not enough time
Director Timm – Dist (10) -10 in favor of keeping checking and 1 in favor of change
Director Hill – Dist (11) -all 9 in favor of USA Hockey proposal
Director Oleheiser Dist(12 ) – not in favor of removing checking.
Director Bushy Dist (15) – mixed feelings –leaning toward retaining checking

No comments listed for:

Michelle Brennan Dist (2)
Mark Jacobs Dist (4)
Mark Elliott Dist (16)

Not a done deal as far as Minnesota is concerned. One of the things mentioned in the draft is the pressure from for profit hockey in Minnesota, and the fact that this rule may push many people to consider something other than the current Minnesota model.

Also, I believe the Minnesota age rule with the July 1 cut off raises real concerns about 14 year olds with no game checking experience facing 6 foot 180 pound 16 year old bantams that have been checking for at least a year.

Read the draft . It gives a pretty clear idea of where Minnesota hockey is on this issue.

I don't know anything other than what I read on the Minnesota website..

You could very well be right..

[Quasar]

Does anyone know where to find the actual vote? I looked at USA Hockey and couldn't find it, just curious who the 12% that voted against it are. According to the twitter feeds from Saturday, Minnesota Hockey supports the rule change, but just didn't think there was enough time to implement it. Interesting, since all we heard before was that Minnesota opposed the rule change and the representatives were instructed to vote against it.

President Margenau called for a vote, explaining that a yes vote means that you support the position defined in Minnesota Hockey draft #2, which states that because of defined concerns, Minnesota Hockey cannot support the proposed rule change 94B to eliminate body checking from PeeWees. Minnesota Hockey suggests immediately implementing the seven actions outlined in the proposal to address player skill development and safety concerns.
A rule change to remove body checking from PeeWees should be reevaluated after one or two seasons
A roll call vote was taken and the results are listed below:
Dennis Green No
Dave Bakke No
Barry Ford No
Paul Watzke Yes
John Perry No
Dave Stigen No
Scott Gray Yes
Jim Bullard Yes
Tom Mickus Yes
Scott Dornfeld Yes
Mark Jacobs No
Doug Kephart Yes
Rich Rakness Yes
Tom Christenson Yes
Tim Timm Yes
Pete Hill No
Steve Oleheiser Yes
Dennis Bushy No
Nancy Wefler Yes
Jon Bittner No
Eric Olson No
With 12 yes votes the motion passed with a simple majority.

[jancze5]

Minnesota hockey, with this new rule implementation, has to go to the table and revisit it's age group categories immediately. They need to align themselves with USA hockey, it doesn't need to be birth year teams, but the term PEE WEE needs to fit the USA Hockey model. I'll say it again..get rid of JV hockey in the schools, put U16 as a valid A-B-C option back in the youth program and not one that's frowned upon like there's something wrong with Junior Gold...just my .02

[InigoMontoya]

At smaller highschools, I'm not sure many varsity coaches would agree with you. Most varsity coaches want 18 skaters on the varsity, but the 4th line doesn't get much, if any, ice during most games - they can get JV icetime. Same with goalies - some small schools may only have a couple; if one or two play 16U, pretty tough if your goalie gets hurt, or sick, or tired, or behind in his studies.

[WB6162]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking
3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

Sounds to me like they've changed it to girl's hockey.

[NSH17]

So instead of taking checking out of the game they will be:
1) allowing more body contact at younger ages
2) educating coaches on how to teach the skill of checking
3) cracking down on the head hunter type checks

It's a very pro-checking program.

It's a good thing so many people spoke up against that silly checking ban proposal.

Sounds to me like they've changed it to girl's hockey.

Thats right. I think I'll have my girl play PeeWees this year.