Helmet Requirement for Coaches

girlshockey · Post by **girlshockey** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:54 am

Minnesota Hockey has passed a rule effective beginning in the 2006-2007 season (and highly recommended now) that all coaches on the ice will be required to wear a HECC approved helmet. USA Hockey also has this on their agenda for a legislative proposal in June to be effective for the 2006-2007 season. Michigan Amateur Hockey has had this rule for many years. It may be insurance driven, but there have been numerous accidents where coaches would have probably lived or not been as seriously injured if the rule had been in place. (Please don't kill the messenger, I am just trying to get the word out so coaches can be prepared for next season.) If you participate with any Minnesota Hockey registered team or event, you will be required to wear a helmet when you are on the ice.

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:14 pm

GHS- Although MN hockey adapted the rule...does that mean the MSHSL did too or is going too?? RW www.rebelhockey.com

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:23 pm

From what I was told, it will be discussed, but not much chance as of today. But as with everything, when change starts at one place, it usually gets to all the places. Unless someone comes up with GOOD reasons not to don a hat.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:38 pm

I haven't heard anything yet about this for HS coaches, but then again I'm not really in the know as much as others that are more active in the coaches assn... That being said, I have no idea. I have a hunch that it will happen eventually. I think there will be some opposition too, not that I disagree or agree personally - but just from what I've heard...

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:56 pm

OH man...you KNOW there is going to be opposition. www.rebelhockey.com

slporiolesfan · Post by **slporiolesfan** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:27 pm

So far the HS League has successfully resisted the stupid "STOP" patches, so not everything implemented for youth hockey moves across!! Helmets for coaches is a tough call, though. Clearly there are coaches who have been injured or killed, so the bad stuff can happen. I guess I would be in favor of something like the rule they used in the NHL when helmets were introduced - all new players after a certain date had to use them, everyone in the league before that didn't. Could something like that work for coaches? In youth hockey, all level 3 or 4 coaches as of x date would have the option to wear or not wear the helmets, but level 1's and 2's wouldn't? Some type of "grandfathering" would seem good to me - while it is smart to protect people, it seems stupid to have coaches with lots of expereince drop out of coaching because of the rule with no grandfathering. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... olesfan</A> at: 2/5/06 11:28 pm

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:27 am

As a longtime youth-level coach, I feel helmet use should be recommended, but optional. I am an adult and I accept the risks-- and the irony was not lost on me the other day as I watched a group of 9-13 year old figure skaters before our practice. Every thirty seconds some kid was falling while trying to perform a hard transition and aerial spin, yet there is no outcry to put helmets on these children... I say again, children. This is not to say youth coaches shouldn't be encouraged to wear helmets, or grandfathering should be put into place as mentioned above. I'm sure MN Hockey is doing what it feels it needs to protect itself for insurance and prevent injuries, and I know the coach-in-chief is a longtime advocate, but I don't like this rule being shoehorned into the January meeting without notice or reaction from the MN Hockey members before it is adopted. I DO think coaches should use more caution when performing demonstrations (go half speed to show technique, not full blast) and not distract themselves by talking through the drill while attempting to perform it. Accidents can happen, but I think if there was some examination of what lead up to the incidents that occured this season, some education could be given in CEP that would really help minimize future injuries there. Of course all this discussion pales in comparison to any possible adoption of the completely subjective and inconsistent "HEP fair play point" at the high school level. Helmets for coaches or not, MSHSL would be well advised to steer clear of that disaster. But that's the topic of another thread...

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:49 am

Excellent points in both prior posts. My guess is that the grandfathering will be tough as my understanding is that part of this is an economic/insurance issue that won't care to do what's right in a grandfathering sense. Figure skaters should wear helments.

chawkb15 · Post by **chawkb15** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:40 am

This is the most stupid rule I have ever heard in my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:59 am

Like anything in life - it's truly $$$ driven. It's all about insurance.

sghfan · Post by **sghfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:14 am

If they need helmets, don't they need mouth guards too? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:50 am

oh boy - next we'll be wearing full gear! In all sincerity, I understand the need to require this if it's financial insurance issue, and I admit that it's for safety reasons, etc. I just thinnk that some would prefer a grandfathering rule like scenario, but even that will be tough for some to handle...

slporiolesfan · Post by **slporiolesfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:57 pm

The comments about insurance driving some changes are probably true. However, too often I think insurance is used as an excuse for pushing things through that wouldn't necessarily stand on their own merits. So, for example, I believe that the annual registration fee per player for youth Hockey is something like $30 for USA Hockey (including insurance) and something less than $10 for Minnesota Hockey - $40 in total. Insurance is only a small piece of that. What is the cost impact of the helmets for coaches on insurance? I have to believe that of all the risks that are out there, there is a relatively small impact - $1 per person? maybe $2? Even that seems high when the total cost of insurance is less than $10 per player / coach annually. My point is that I think insurance should (in most cases) not be the tail that wags the dog. If the net savings of wearing helmets is a $1 or $2 per player / coach annually, then insurance should not be a factor in the logic to implement. The proposal should stand on it's own merits without "we have to do this for insurance". From a pure cost perspective the funds required to buy the helmets WAY outpaces the "savings" on insurance. There is no "economic" justification for helmets. Of course, that doesn't mean that the helmet proposal should not stand - it might or might not be justified on it's own - just take the economic argument about having to do it for insurance purposes out of the equation.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:43 pm

When you pay insurance, what happens if there is a claim? Is it just covered without a deductible? I have no idea... I agree that $$$ is all too often the driving force, and sometimes an excuse too in general...

allthenet · Post by **allthenet** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:59 pm

I'm not an "old school" hockey guy so I won't try to think for those that are. As for my kids health and safety, I would like to see helmets on more coaches. My yongest told me the other day that helmets are for wussy's. Hard telling where that came from but, it's not the attidude I want from a 8 year old. Eventualy it will get excepted as more adults wear them. Why fight something that can only help prevent injury. That being said, I agree with some of the above posts talking about adults being responsible for thier own safety. The real problem (danger) is the open skate type activity mentioned above. Tough call. I'm just for any progress toward more helmet use on the ice.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:23 pm

Minnesota Hockey change to mandating helmets was not based on insurance issues. At the committee meeting and at the Board meeting the following day insurance was not mentioned. Giving the coaches a degree of protection and giving kids a better role model in safety were the most pressing issues.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:48 pm

I think it might have been an easier sell to say that insurance was at least part of the consideration - as it must be???

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:07 am

To me, there's really no good answer to "why not?" 8 or 9 years ago here, a coach was talking on ice to someone when a player slid into the back of his legs, his feet went forward and up and the back of his head slammed the ice. He wore a helmet ever since. Besides, in 3-5 years, no coach will give it a 2nd thought when he/she puts on the helmet. You know that no player wonders why they have to wear one; its automatic. In time, the same will be true for coaches.

hockeywild711 · Post by **hockeywild711** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:18 am

In my opinion this is just another example of overreacting to a percieved safety issue. Youth hockey should spend more time figuring out how to train officials properly to get the game back under control and spend less time worrying about coaches wearing helmets. The boys High school game is out of control and getting worse. The girls game is going the same way.

wrestlelaw · Post by **wrestlelaw** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:30 pm

Our arean has a rule that if there is a stick on the ice, anyone on the ice must have a helmet on. No exceptions. Anyone else have this rule.

FightCadetsFight · Post by **FightCadetsFight** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:40 pm

I think what irritated a lot of the coaches is that I don't think any were consulted about the helmet rule. It is just another rule passed down from the MN Hockey folks without consulting the people most affected by the rule. Similar to the mandatory stop patch rule; does anyone really think that the stop patch has any effect at all on the way the game is played? Similar to the HEP program; similar to the age change in girls hockey - eliminating the U15 group. The point is that coaches should have been involved in all of the above mentioned changes. I don't think many were.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:22 am

That is not entirely true. District 16 meetings mentioned it three years ago and continually since, that helmets for coaches was probably coming. Minnesota Hockey had the 'STRONGLY recommends' in the Handbook for the last three years. When this was brought up by the committee and Hal Tearse, I posted it on a thread in the youth hockey forum and broadcast the issue to all D16 associaitons. I feel that the final vote should have been tabled until our Spring meeting. But I still have been answering emails, phone calls and on here - telling people (coaches) to come to the Spring meeting as nothing is written in stone yet. There may be some middle ground that can keep people moving forward.

OnFrozenPond · Post by **OnFrozenPond** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:41 am

I coach. I don't wear a helmet. I would prefer not to wear a helmet. I think MN Hockey should have better things to do with their time than legislate helmets. But if a coach quits over something as silly as wearing a helmet on the ice, they should be ashamed of themselves.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:37 pm

First, I think they should have, what the politicians call, "generated some support" by publicizing the results of Tearse's study and taken this vote this spring or summer after making their intentions known. This "surprise" is a PR blunder. Because of the way this decision was handled, it joins a growing list of requirements and regulations coupled with a growing sense of being under the committee microscope (association, district, state, etc.) that is taking a lot of the enjoyment out of volunteer coaching. I believe many accidents can be avoided by spending 10 minutes educating coaches to exercise more caution when doing demos as I posted earlier, and something as small as avoiding standing in open ice at practice. I try to keep my back near the wall and stand near the benches whenever possible to avoid players who wipeout. Don't stand in open ice after you start a drill. Keep the play in front of you. Pretty simple stuff. Tearse's article talks about coaches getting knocked down from behind all the time and hitting their heads, but is excercising something as basic as how to stay out of the way ever mentioned in CEP level one? I sure don't recall this. Examining the root causes of the accidents first might be more effective in avoiding the collisions and spills than slapping a piece of plastic over the problem. There is more than head injuries at issue here and the kids are at greater risk too when colliding with coaches. If some basic sense was put into play instead of more rules, I doubt this would have ever become a significant safety threat and a lot of injuries (to the head and otherwise) could have been avoided. I'll go out and buy a lid if it's required, but I am troubled by the manner it was instituted. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... pitreal</A> at: 2/8/06 1:41 pm

hockeywild711 · Post by **hockeywild711** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:50 pm

My only question is where is all the evidence that this is a real problem? Give me the facts, are we making coaches wear helmets because of one or two incidents? Are coaches getting hurt on a regular basis because of not wearing helmets? I can tell you far more get hit in the shins by deflected shots or passes than fall and hit their head on the ice. Maybe they should be required to wear shin pads also. I would like to know how many times injuries have occured because a coach wasnt wearing a helmet. This rule is ridiculous and more about someone with too much time on their hands. Funny why no one requires refs to wear face masks. I will bet their are far more injuries to officials getting pucks in the face than coaches falling on their heads!!

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Helmets

Re: Helmets

Re: Helmets

Re: Helmets

Re: Helmets

Re: Helmets

Re: Insurance

Re: Insurance

Helmets???

Re: Helmets???

Re: Helmets???

coaches helmets

coaches helmets

Helmets

Re: Helmets

Cadet

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

Re: Helmet Requirement for Coaches

helmets for coaches