HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

We[ FL central JR] played CR, Northdale, Rosevelt, Fredmore, Ect Ect. No weights everyone played each other.

Both my boys play football and where they play there is no classification for weight. In fact my oldest (6th grader) played 12U which meant kids could be in 6th to 8th grade. There was a weight limit to be a skilled player - 130lbs. My son is 90lbs soaking wet. I know there were some lineman close to 200lbs in his league. He was fine - primarily because the coach he had when he started playing tackle football back in the 3rd grade. For the first two weeks there was a station that taught the kids how to tackle & how to get tackled. The coach made sure all the kids new the basics which helped my son tremendously. My son played for him for 3 years then this last year he moved up a level. We actually moved out of the area, but I still had my 3rd grader go back an play for that same coach. The 3rd grader his league was 10U so it went form 3rd to 5th grade. The weight limit for skilled players was 100lbs. I know there were some kids upwards of 130lbs. My 3rd grader weighs 55lbs soaking wet. His season went great - he loved it. No doubt he was very timid at first but once he found his way he did fine because the coach understood how important it was to make sure the kids new the proper techniques. It is the same thing with checking it is about teaching and working with the payers to make sure they understand first why to check, second how to check and third how to take a check. NO reason to take it away - TEACH IT!

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:
Those are more helpful comments. USA hockey is saying that their proposal will help development. Dr Norris explains the stance a bit here.
http://www.admkids.com/media.php I'm only about 1/3 through his talk, so I don't have an opinion yet. They do need to explain why it will work better.
. . .

Brian Burke (a Minnesotan and USAh power that be) gives his 2 cents on the above link. Check it out.

Mr. Burke's speech is a waste of time since it downloads so slow. Spinner - correct me where I inaccurately summarize his points.

He started off his talk with a story about how his son was run from behind in a vicious hit and for the first time he yelled at the other team's coach. I'm not sure what relevance this has..

I wasn't overwhelmed by his speech either. His resume tells you he knows what he's talking about. His speech leaves you wondering. But he is an example of a Minnesotan and USAh bigwig who is supporting the proposal.

I was left with the impression that he was only upset because the big hit was on his son. He also made great use of his time venting on parents.

I also had trouble with how many times he lauded his youth team policy of no swearing when he cussed quite a few times in his speech. It seemed pretty hypocritical.

There are good ideas and goals in the proposal. I don't think they were expressed very well by Burke.

Spin, I'm confused. Weren't you the one that introduced Burke as expert testimony?

Spin - you seem to support the proposal. Can you attempt to articulate why you do?

InigoMontoya wrote:Spin, I'm confused. Weren't you the one that introduced Burke as expert testimony?

The claim was that the proposal was a USAh idea that no hockey knowledgable Minnesotan would go for. Burke is an example of a Minnesotan who likes it.

spin-o-rama wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:Spin, I'm confused. Weren't you the one that introduced Burke as expert testimony?

The claim was that the proposal was a USAh idea that no hockey knowledgable Minnesotan would go for. Burke is an example of a Minnesotan who likes it.

Spinner - I agree not to argue that all Minnesotans are better than everyone else in the USA when it comes to hockey knowledge if you agree not to conclude that USA hockey knows better than Minnesota and that Burke is not the best shining example of youth hockey knowledge.

spin-o-rama wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:Spin, I'm confused. Weren't you the one that introduced Burke as expert testimony?

The claim was that the proposal was a USAh idea that no hockey knowledgable Minnesotan would go for. Burke is an example of a Minnesotan who likes it.

Just because Burke was born and raised in Minnesota doesn't make him an "expert" when it comes to youth hockey in Minnesota, IMO. Has he ever coached a youth team in Minnesota or served on an association board?

I'm not sure, just asking because it seems that Burke's area of knowledge seems to be more in the college and professional game, not the Squirts thru Bantams in our State.

IMO, Burke is no more of an "expert" in youth hockey in America than Don Cherry is an "expert" of youth hockey in Canada. They are both fiery individuals who have strong personal opinions, but opinion is all they go with. I doubt he has seriously studied this issue, nor considered the other side of the argument (because people like Burke and Cherry RARELY consider the other side).

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Spin - you seem to support the proposal. Can you attempt to articulate why you do?

I think the proposal is trying to match up training to the windows of development opportunity mentioned in the ADM and LTAD. Does USAh have it exactly right? Probably not, but they probably have a better knowledge than Joe-dad. I hardly think USAh is out to screw people up.

I like the ideas of far more time being spent teaching checking before it is used in games. I like the idea of allowing and encouraging body contact at earlier ages. I think it will make for a smoother transition to full checking than the current standard of a 1 hour checking clinic followed by a bell ringing wakeup call in the first peewee game.

Should MN go with the USAh recommendation of peewees being the checking instructional years and bantams being the first level with full checking in games or should it be moved to squirts and peewees respectively? I don't know. Maybe there are other solutions that are better.

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:Spin, I'm confused. Weren't you the one that introduced Burke as expert testimony?

The claim was that the proposal was a USAh idea that no hockey knowledgable Minnesotan would go for. Burke is an example of a Minnesotan who likes it.

Spinner - I agree not to argue that all Minnesotans are better than everyone else in the USA when it comes to hockey knowledge if you agree not to conclude that USA hockey knows better than Minnesota and that Burke is not the best shining example of youth hockey knowledge.

Agreed! Let's look at the merits of the proposal!

spin-o-rama wrote:

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Spin - you seem to support the proposal. Can you attempt to articulate why you do?

I think the proposal is trying to match up training to the windows of development opportunity mentioned in the ADM and LTAD. Does USAh have it exactly right? Probably not, but they probably have a better knowledge than Joe-dad. I hardly think USAh is out to screw people up.

I like the ideas of far more time being spent teaching checking before it is used in games. I like the idea of allowing and encouraging body contact at earlier ages. I think it will make for a smoother transition to full checking than the current standard of a 1 hour checking clinic followed by a bell ringing wakeup call in the first peewee game.

Should MN go with the USAh recommendation of peewees being the checking instructional years and bantams being the first level with full checking in games or should it be moved to squirts and peewees respectively? I don't know. Maybe there are other solutions that are better.

Why can't they take a more measured approach and introduce more body contact at a younger age WITH checking at peewee to see if that addresses what ever issue they are trying to address ( not clear to me ). You and USAH hockey are assuming there will be 2 years of teaching checking during peewees is pretty bold. You will probably end up with a 1 hour checking clinic followed by a brain scrambling wakeup call in the first BANTAM game.

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Spin - you seem to support the proposal. Can you attempt to articulate why you do?

I think the proposal is trying to match up training to the windows of development opportunity mentioned in the ADM and LTAD. Does USAh have it exactly right? Probably not, but they probably have a better knowledge than Joe-dad. I hardly think USAh is out to screw people up.

I like the ideas of far more time being spent teaching checking before it is used in games. I like the idea of allowing and encouraging body contact at earlier ages. I think it will make for a smoother transition to full checking than the current standard of a 1 hour checking clinic followed by a bell ringing wakeup call in the first peewee game.

Should MN go with the USAh recommendation of peewees being the checking instructional years and bantams being the first level with full checking in games or should it be moved to squirts and peewees respectively? I don't know. Maybe there are other solutions that are better.

Why can't they take a more measured approach and introduce more body contact at a younger age WITH checking at peewee to see if that addresses what ever issue they are trying to address ( not clear to me ). You and USAH hockey are assuming there will be 2 years of teaching checking during peewees is pretty bold. You will probably end up with a 1 hour checking clinic followed by a brain scrambling wakeup call in the first BANTAM game.

Exactly! Spinner, your flaw is that you assume kids will learn how to check BEFORE being able to check... Also, these kids learn how to check in summer hockey and clinics etc before PeeWee starts... they don't just get thrown into the world of checking in games without instruction. Any association that would allow that is negligent in my opinion.

Speaking of "experts", do you think the expert that convinced the NFL that Christina Aguilera was the best choice to sing the Star Spangled Banner still has a job? Be careful of your decisions MN Hock....

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Exactly! Spinner, your flaw is that you assume kids will learn how to check BEFORE being able to check... Also, these kids learn how to check in summer hockey and clinics etc before PeeWee starts... they don't just get thrown into the world of checking in games without instruction. Any association that would allow that is negligent in my opinion.

First you say that kids can't learn how to check before they are able to check. Then you say that kids aren't thrown into a checking situation without having instruction (implying they have been taught before they are able to do it in games.) Wow! Check your own flaws.

1) Kids need more instruction and training on checking before doing it in games.
2) Kids currently receive the right amount of checking training and practice before doing it in games.
3) Kids don't need as much checking training before starting checking games.

Quit mixing it up. Pick a position and go with it.
I'm behind #1. Whether the USAh proposal is the right fit for MN or there needs to be an adaption or a custom program is my question.

spin-o-rama wrote:

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Exactly! Spinner, your flaw is that you assume kids will learn how to check BEFORE being able to check... Also, these kids learn how to check in summer hockey and clinics etc before PeeWee starts... they don't just get thrown into the world of checking in games without instruction. Any association that would allow that is negligent in my opinion.

First you say that kids can't learn how to check before they are able to check. Then you say that kids aren't thrown into a checking situation without having instruction (implying they have been taught before they are able to do it in games.) Wow! Check your own flaws.

1) Kids need more instruction and training on checking before doing it in games.

Agreed, but why does that mean the training must be done before "Bantam" games? Why not in summer clinics, camps, and in practices early in PeeWees?

spin-o-rama wrote: 2) Kids currently receive the right amount of checking training and practice before doing it in games.

Disagree to an extent, though I don't think there's an epidemic warranting changing the past 50+ years of hockey. Do you?

spin-o-rama wrote: 3) Kids don't need as much checking training before starting checking games.

How much is "as much"? They need to be taught how to check, how to take a check, and what is illegal - and then go learn in the games to perfect the skills (which takes years if ever happens), and then reinforce these skills in practices.

spin-o-rama wrote: Quit mixing it up. Pick a position and go with it.
I'm behind #1. Whether the USAh proposal is the right fit for MN or there needs to be an adaption or a custom program is my question.

#1 is everyone's position. Do you or do you not support USA hockey's proposal? Thanks!

spin-o-rama wrote:

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:Exactly! Spinner, your flaw is that you assume kids will learn how to check BEFORE being able to check... Also, these kids learn how to check in summer hockey and clinics etc before PeeWee starts... they don't just get thrown into the world of checking in games without instruction. Any association that would allow that is negligent in my opinion.

First you say that kids can't learn how to check before they are able to check. Then you say that kids aren't thrown into a checking situation without having instruction (implying they have been taught before they are able to do it in games.) Wow! Check your own flaws.

1) Kids need more instruction and training on checking before doing it in games.
2) Kids currently receive the right amount of checking training and practice before doing it in games.
3) Kids don't need as much checking training before starting checking games.

Quit mixing it up. Pick a position and go with it.
I'm behind #1. Whether the USAh proposal is the right fit for MN or there needs to be an adaption or a custom program is my question.

Would you be behind #1 if it were worded like this?:

1) Kids need more instruction and training on checking while in Squirts before doing it in games as a PeeWee.

Well stated Muck... brilliantly stated and relays exactly the stupidity in USA hockey's desire to change PeeWee's presently.

This is about numbers. For some reason, USA hockey believes checking is the reason why USA hockey players' numbers drop off dramatically after squirts. Burke's speech on the USA hockey website states as much.

My position is that those players who are voluntarily dropping out simply because there is checking at PeeWee's are few and far between - and those same kids are not going to get to Bantams and then miraculously want to get hit by players who can be six feet tall and weight upwards of 180 lbs.

Further, parental decisions are not going to change at Bantams for reasons that are self explanatory if you go watch a PeeWee game and then go watch a Bantam game right after. The increase in speed and size is as large as any jump in hockey... including college.

Lastly, I firmly believe that its the increased costs and time commitment that drives parents away in droves after squirts and mites. Many parents see other sports that require less money and time as alternatives at this age, and those parents are not going to be lulled back by saying "Look, look come back we took away checking!!!"

CHC makes good points and I would take them a step further. If you look at participation drop-off in other sports like baseball, football, and basketball - it all begins at this same age level. It continues to drop at bantams and further drops at high school. It's the evolution of childhood development where kids lose or change interest for whatever reason or they never really wanted to play in the first place. How many kids do you know that are just playing squirt hockey because Dad did or wants them to? That idea changes in kids and short-sighted views like those of Burke are dangerous.

Another point to make is that concussions are on the rise because more people are aware of the symptoms. In the past, you would only worry if a player was knocked out - better medical information is bringing forward more concussion diagnosis but you absolutely can't attribute that to a higher incident rate.

If you really want to see a drop-off in participation, take checking away from Pee Wees and I firmly believe that's when you'll see some "Dramatic" losses in USAH players.

The study on concussions should include a category that separates how many concussions are a result of a legal hit and how many resulted in a penalty. I don't know about everyone else but every pee wee game I go to has shots to the head, or checks from behind, or boarding, etc... Some of which go to the box for a minute and a half and some that aren't called. Almost always when someone is hurt, it is the result of an illegal hit. Almost always, no matter how egregious the hit, it results in a minute and a half penalty, if it's called at all. I see other kids throw punches at kids heads and refs just break it up. This is largely an enforcement issue. These kids need to sit games and they will learn very quickly what they can't do and get away with it. Right now, it's usually the same kids that go out night after night and check from behind and hit high--if they get called they spend a minute and a half in the box. Until they deal with a stronger policy penalizing these hits, the issue will never be adequately addressed. I just shake my head every time I see a kid light up another kid from behind only to go spend a minute in the box. Can't wait to see this in bantams when kids are checking for the first time. It is such an obvious issue that gets ignored. And please, I don't want to hear anyone claim that the USAH talks about this all the time-it's an age old problem that's never addressed. Way to stick your head in the sand over this.

This problem can be addressed in a very straight forward manner. Call it on the ice and sit kids for games. For the less violent hits, why doesn't USAH make a rule that if a kid gets 3 (or whatever number) hits to the head, roughing, boarding, etc... Over the course of a season, they have to sit a game. If they get an additional number of penalties, they sit multiple games. All kids understand one thing- playing time. This will do more in the prevention of injuries than anything else. My two cents

gorilla1 wrote:The study on concussions should include a category that separates how many concussions are a result of a legal hit and how many resulted in a penalty. I don't know about everyone else but every pee wee game I go to has shots to the head, or checks from behind, or boarding, etc... Some of which go to the box for a minute and a half and some that aren't called. Almost always when someone is hurt, it is the result of an illegal hit. Almost always, no matter how egregious the hit, it results in a minute and a half penalty, if it's called at all. I see other kids throw punches at kids heads and refs just break it up. This is largely an enforcement issue. These kids need to sit games and they will learn very quickly what they can't do and get away with it. Right now, it's usually the same kids that go out night after night and check from behind and hit high--if they get called they spend a minute and a half in the box. Until they deal with a stronger policy penalizing these hits, the issue will never be adequately addressed. I just shake my head every time I see a kid light up another kid from behind only to go spend a minute in the box. Can't wait to see this in bantams when kids are checking for the first time. It is such an obvious issue that gets ignored. And please, I don't want to hear anyone claim that the USAH talks about this all the time-it's an age old problem that's never addressed. Way to stick your head in the sand over this.

This problem can be addressed in a very straight forward manner. Call it on the ice and sit kids for games. For the less violent hits, why doesn't USAH make a rule that if a kid gets 3 (or whatever number) hits to the head, roughing, boarding, etc... Over the course of a season, they have to sit a game. If they get an additional number of penalties, they sit multiple games. All kids understand one thing- playing time. This will do more in the prevention of injuries than anything else. My two cents

Let's take it a step further, how about if a team commits over a certain number of illegal and dangerous hits over a predetermined length of time or amount of games, then the coach ALSO is suspended for a number of games. IMO, that will get these coach's attention and force them to teach the proper and legal way to check.

muckandgrind wrote:
Let's take it a step further, how about if a team commits over a certain number of illegal and dangerous hits over a predetermined length of time or amount of games, then the coach ALSO is suspended for a number of games. IMO, that will get these coach's attention and force them to teach the proper and legal way to check.

Completely agree Muck. Great post.

Let's take it a step further, how about if a team commits over a certain number of illegal and dangerous hits over a predetermined length of time or amount of games, then the coach ALSO is suspended for a number of games. IMO, that will get these coach's attention and force them to teach the proper and legal way to check.[/quote]

Isn't there a rule in place now that within a game if to many penalties are issued (for the team in total) a coach is suspeneded for the following game?

muckandgrind wrote:

gorilla1 wrote:The study on concussions should include a category that separates how many concussions are a result of a legal hit and how many resulted in a penalty. I don't know about everyone else but every pee wee game I go to has shots to the head, or checks from behind, or boarding, etc... Some of which go to the box for a minute and a half and some that aren't called. Almost always when someone is hurt, it is the result of an illegal hit. Almost always, no matter how egregious the hit, it results in a minute and a half penalty, if it's called at all. I see other kids throw punches at kids heads and refs just break it up. This is largely an enforcement issue. These kids need to sit games and they will learn very quickly what they can't do and get away with it. Right now, it's usually the same kids that go out night after night and check from behind and hit high--if they get called they spend a minute and a half in the box. Until they deal with a stronger policy penalizing these hits, the issue will never be adequately addressed. I just shake my head every time I see a kid light up another kid from behind only to go spend a minute in the box. Can't wait to see this in bantams when kids are checking for the first time. It is such an obvious issue that gets ignored. And please, I don't want to hear anyone claim that the USAH talks about this all the time-it's an age old problem that's never addressed. Way to stick your head in the sand over this.

This problem can be addressed in a very straight forward manner. Call it on the ice and sit kids for games. For the less violent hits, why doesn't USAH make a rule that if a kid gets 3 (or whatever number) hits to the head, roughing, boarding, etc... Over the course of a season, they have to sit a game. If they get an additional number of penalties, they sit multiple games. All kids understand one thing- playing time. This will do more in the prevention of injuries than anything else. My two cents

Let's take it a step further, how about if a team commits over a certain number of illegal and dangerous hits over a predetermined length of time or amount of games, then the coach ALSO is suspended for a number of games. IMO, that will get these coach's attention and force them to teach the proper and legal way to check.

I say take it a step further. Fine the association "real money" everytime "X" of illegal or dangerous hit penalties are assessed and if they get to a certain level ban them from playoffs. You want real results, real results come from the top of associations and you get their attention by hitting them in the pocket book and in playoff bans

Fine the youth assc ??? Didn't they just lower pen mins 2: mins. Down to 1:30. All they have to do is enforce the rules.

JSR wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

gorilla1 wrote:The study on concussions should include a category that separates how many concussions are a result of a legal hit and how many resulted in a penalty. I don't know about everyone else but every pee wee game I go to has shots to the head, or checks from behind, or boarding, etc... Some of which go to the box for a minute and a half and some that aren't called. Almost always when someone is hurt, it is the result of an illegal hit. Almost always, no matter how egregious the hit, it results in a minute and a half penalty, if it's called at all. I see other kids throw punches at kids heads and refs just break it up. This is largely an enforcement issue. These kids need to sit games and they will learn very quickly what they can't do and get away with it. Right now, it's usually the same kids that go out night after night and check from behind and hit high--if they get called they spend a minute and a half in the box. Until they deal with a stronger policy penalizing these hits, the issue will never be adequately addressed. I just shake my head every time I see a kid light up another kid from behind only to go spend a minute in the box. Can't wait to see this in bantams when kids are checking for the first time. It is such an obvious issue that gets ignored. And please, I don't want to hear anyone claim that the USAH talks about this all the time-it's an age old problem that's never addressed. Way to stick your head in the sand over this.

This problem can be addressed in a very straight forward manner. Call it on the ice and sit kids for games. For the less violent hits, why doesn't USAH make a rule that if a kid gets 3 (or whatever number) hits to the head, roughing, boarding, etc... Over the course of a season, they have to sit a game. If they get an additional number of penalties, they sit multiple games. All kids understand one thing- playing time. This will do more in the prevention of injuries than anything else. My two cents

Let's take it a step further, how about if a team commits over a certain number of illegal and dangerous hits over a predetermined length of time or amount of games, then the coach ALSO is suspended for a number of games. IMO, that will get these coach's attention and force them to teach the proper and legal way to check.

I say take it a step further. Fine the association "real money" everytime "X" of illegal or dangerous hit penalties are assessed and if they get to a certain level ban them from playoffs. You want real results, real results come from the top of associations and you get their attention by hitting them in the pocket book and in playoff bans

I think if your A coaches have to stay off the bench, you'll get more response than a $300 fine out of the general fund.

My observation is that 1-3 kids on teams make 'bad' hits, another 3-5 take the majority of penalties. The coaches know which kids they are and yet those kids return to the ice over and over to repeat the same mistakes. There are also a few teams at that everyone dreads playing because they play beyond the rules. Take the 1-3 kids out of each of these team's games and the game cleans up immediately.