PeeWee checking

[JSR]

It's an issue to take up with the local association regarding their coaches. ALL coaches are being taught to teach it. Whether they do or not is a local issue.

They are? A squirt coach is only required to be a level 1 CEP or a level 2 CEP.... I have my level 3 CEP and I can tell you emphatically we didn't learn anything about checking or body contact in my classes until the Level 3 class. I can also tell you no one in our area is going around giving coaching clinics and no one is there to police it or encourage it. Sorry man but I think you are wrong on this one, not everyone is being taught to teach it, in fact at the squirt age and below I bet its a minority of coaches who are being taught that....

[SCBlueLiner]

Teaching checking at Pee Wees and below is given lip service. Yeah, USA Hockey says to teach it, and some of those skills such as angling, rubbing, pinning, and body contact are being taught, but there is a bit of a difference between teaching body contact and checking. I coach defenseman primarily and the difference between a non-check game and a checking game is huge for a defenseman. There are so many times over the course of a game where the body should be taken but instead defenseman are waving their sticks at the forwards because that is what they did in pee wees since checking was against the rules. Same thing happens with forwards on a forecheck, just wave your stick at the player instead of taking the body like you should.

Also, the referees don't enforce the rules consistently regarding body contact in pee wees. Some places are almost full on checking given the amount of contact allowed, where other places you'll get sent to the box for breathing too hard in another player's direction. The difference between a good body contact play and one that draws a penalty is whether or not the opponent is a strong skater or a weak one that falls down when body contact is made. It's tough for seasoned players to figure out how tightly games are called and we're expecting kids that age to deal with an ever-changing set of rules.

Hockey is a read/react sport. You really expect coaches to teach kids checking at those younger age levels and then expect them to not react to situations and use those skills in a game?

- Here you go Johnny, I'm going to teach you how to do this but don't do it during a game.
- Why?
- Because it's against the rules.
- Johnny shrugs his shoulders in confusion.

Reality is in most associations ice time is at a premium. When you have such little time you focus on what is important in the here and now, which at squirts and pee wees (given the rules in place) is skating, shooting, passing, and stickhandling. Teaching checking becomes something that gets put off until later.

BTW, blow-up hits wouldn't be blow-up hits if the puck carrier had his head up. I hate it when a good, legal, clean check gets called a penalty because it is "too hard". It's not the checker's fault the opponent was a weak skater/didn't have his head up/wasn't prepared to make contact. "Big noise" penalties are called because of the reaction by all the mommies sitting in the stands.

[JSR]

Teaching checking at Pee Wees and below is given lip service. Yeah, USA Hockey says to teach it, and some of those skills such as angling, rubbing, pinning, and body contact are being taught, but there is a bit of a difference between teaching body contact and checking. I coach defenseman primarily and the difference between a non-check game and a checking game is huge for a defenseman. There are so many times over the course of a game where the body should be taken but instead defenseman are waving their sticks at the forwards because that is what they did in pee wees since checking was against the rules. Same thing happens with forwards on a forecheck, just wave your stick at the player instead of taking the body like you should.

Also, the referees don't enforce the rules consistently regarding body contact in pee wees. Some places are almost full on checking given the amount of contact allowed, where other places you'll get sent to the box for breathing too hard in another player's direction. The difference between a good body contact play and one that draws a penalty is whether or not the opponent is a strong skater or a weak one that falls down when body contact is made. It's tough for seasoned players to figure out how tightly games are called and we're expecting kids that age to deal with an ever-changing set of rules.

Hockey is a read/react sport. You really expect coaches to teach kids checking at those younger age levels and then expect them to not react to situations and use those skills in a game?

- Here you go Johnny, I'm going to teach you how to do this but don't do it during a game.
- Why?
- Because it's against the rules.
- Johnny shrugs his shoulders in confusion.

Reality is in most associations ice time is at a premium. When you have such little time you focus on what is important in the here and now, which at squirts and pee wees (given the rules in place) is skating, shooting, passing, and stickhandling. Teaching checking becomes something that gets put off until later.

BTW, blow-up hits wouldn't be blow-up hits if the puck carrier had his head up. I hate it when a good, legal, clean check gets called a penalty because it is "too hard". It's not the checker's fault the opponent was a weak skater/didn't have his head up/wasn't prepared to make contact. "Big noise" penalties are called because of the reaction by all the mommies sitting in the stands.

I agree pretty much with everything you said here except SOME blow up hits are not because of the puck carrier's weaknesses, sometimes they are just plain bad or dirty hits and deserve penalties. A good, clean, hard check that results in winning the puck and just so happens to also "blow a player up", those are fine, any others are where the intent is clearly to injure the player, those are dirty in my book and deserve a misconduct every time

[SCBlueLiner]

JSR, we don't disagree there. There are some hits that are for headhunting purposes only. I think we all know that. My comments were more about otherwise legal checks that get called because they are "loud".

[zambonidriver]

Have seen 4 bantam games this season 3 FL Bantam A games and the St. Paul
Sibley AA game was surprised at the lack of hitting.

[SECoach]

It's an issue to take up with the local association regarding their coaches. ALL coaches are being taught to teach it. Whether they do or not is a local issue.

They are? A squirt coach is only required to be a level 1 CEP or a level 2 CEP.... I have my level 3 CEP and I can tell you emphatically we didn't learn anything about checking or body contact in my classes until the Level 3 class. I can also tell you no one in our area is going around giving coaching clinics and no one is there to police it or encourage it. Sorry man but I think you are wrong on this one, not everyone is being taught to teach it, in fact at the squirt age and below I bet its a minority of coaches who are being taught that....

The CEP Level certifications are no longer relevant to the age being coached. A first year coach must be at least level 1, a 2nd year coach must be at least level 2, a 3rd year coach must be at least level 3, regardless of the age group they are coaching. An exception is made at the 8U level that allows coaches to not move forward with their education requirements. Body contact is covered at level 2 in the section "Checking the right way for youth hockey". If a first year, level 1 coach is at the 12U/Pee Wee level or higher, they would receive body contact/checking education in the age-specific module required to coach at that level. Sure could be that you received your Level 1 and Level 2 prior to the CEP courses going through a major overhaul several years back.

[nahc]

Checking should be taught at the Squirt level. The younger the better in order to prepare skaters for the rigors of higher level hockey. Best to teach kids the SAFE way to receive and give a check........ will also hasten skating with your head up....

Second, until boys can play on girls teams, I am totally against girls playing on boys teams. These girl skaters may indeed have the talent to play at the boys level, but a level playing field is a level playing field........

[BluehawkHockey]

Second, until boys can play on girls teams, I am totally against girls playing on boys teams. These girl skaters may indeed have the talent to play at the boys level, but a level playing field is a level playing field........

I agree. Oh wait, when did all the associations in the state and MN Hockey itself start spending the same amount on girls programs as boys? Last I checked, that hasn't happened yet. I looked at last years budget for the HP program. Boys program was budgeted for twice the amount as the girls program. Is that level?

Yes, there are exceptions but in general, associations rarely put the same resources into the girls programs as the boys. Not very often do the girls programs have paid coaches, usually just fathers doing their best. Not very often the top girls team at each level gets the same number of ice hours as the top boys team at each level.

NAHC, you might be one of the lucky one's in a good association that treats them equally. But I'm guessing not since you brought up girls playing boys hockey in a Peewee Checking topic. I'm guessing someone you know got beat out by one of those interloper girls who has no business playing boys hockey or hockey at all.

[Goose21]

Second, until boys can play on girls teams, I am totally against girls playing on boys teams. These girl skaters may indeed have the talent to play at the boys level, but a level playing field is a level playing field........

I agree. Oh wait, when did all the associations in the state and MN Hockey itself start spending the same amount on girls programs as boys? Last I checked, that hasn't happened yet. I looked at last years budget for the HP program. Boys program was budgeted for twice the amount as the girls program. Is that level?

Yes, there are exceptions but in general, associations rarely put the same resources into the girls programs as the boys. Not very often do the girls programs have paid coaches, usually just fathers doing their best. Not very often the top girls team at each level gets the same number of ice hours as the top boys team at each level.

NAHC, you might be one of the lucky one's in a good association that treats them equally. But I'm guessing not since you brought up girls playing boys hockey in a Peewee Checking topic. I'm guessing someone you know got beat out by one of those interloper girls who has no business playing boys hockey or hockey at all.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "boys hockey" at the mite thru bantam level in Minnesota/USA Hockey. I think the designations are Youth Hockey (open to boys and girls) and Girls Hockey (open to just girls).

[BluehawkHockey]

I don't believe there is such a thing as "boys hockey" at the mite thru bantam level in Minnesota/USA Hockey. I think the designations are Youth Hockey (open to boys and girls) and Girls Hockey (open to just girls).

True enough. So there isn't an even playing field between youth and girls if you consider youth to represent boys only as many would like. At the state and national development program levels, I don't think they will even let a girl participate on a youth team. It is Boys HP and Girls HP. It is Girls 15, Girls Under 18, Girls Select 18 and Boys Select 15, Boys Select 16, Boys Select 17.

[zambonidriver]

Second, until boys can play on girls teams, I am totally against girls playing on boys teams. These girl skaters may indeed have the talent to play at the boys level, but a level playing field is a level playing field........

I agree. Oh wait, when did all the associations in the state and MN Hockey itself start spending the same amount on girls programs as boys? Last I checked, that hasn't happened yet. I looked at last years budget for the HP program. Boys program was budgeted for twice the amount as the girls program. Is that level?

Yes, there are exceptions but in general, associations rarely put the same resources into the girls programs as the boys. Not very often do the girls programs have paid coaches, usually just fathers doing their best. Not very often the top girls team at each level gets the same number of ice hours as the top boys team at each level.

NAHC, you might be one of the lucky one's in a good association that treats them equally. But I'm guessing not since you brought up girls playing boys hockey in a Peewee Checking topic. I'm guessing someone you know got beat out by one of those interloper girls who has no business playing boys hockey or hockey at all.

Very seldom do I agree with Bluehawk but he is totally right here. Girls programs are the reheaded step child and boards of associations view the girls program as a necessary evil. When the head coach of the best women's college program in the country tells your daughter to play boys then you listen.

[flpucknut]

I think I'm in disagreement as to the difficulty in teaching checking in practice and the kids not being able to control themselves in games.

Last season at the B PeeWee Level, we as a coaching staff made the decision that we owed it to the second year kids to prepare them for Bantams.

For the next few weeks we took a small amount of time each practice to teach how to deliver and take a check. Once we showed them the proper techniques, we told them, from now on, checking is allowed in practice. Every drill, every 3 on 3, is full body contact. Any cheap hits will be dealt with. As expected the first couple days were sloppy. Kids looking to hit instead of play, and conversely, kids looking to not get hit, instead of play. You know what happened though? They figured it out. All on their own, that playing the body in a safe way, is ok, you aren't going to die. We saw almost zero carryover to games. The kids that got checking or roughing penalties were the same ones getting them in the first half of the season.


Teach them, demonstrate and then hold them accountable.

[JSR]

I think I'm in disagreement as to the difficulty in teaching checking in practice and the kids not being able to control themselves in games.

Last season at the B PeeWee Level, we as a coaching staff made the decision that we owed it to the second year kids to prepare them for Bantams.

For the next few weeks we took a small amount of time each practice to teach how to deliver and take a check. Once we showed them the proper techniques, we told them, from now on, checking is allowed in practice. Every drill, every 3 on 3, is full body contact. Any cheap hits will be dealt with. As expected the first couple days were sloppy. Kids looking to hit instead of play, and conversely, kids looking to not get hit, instead of play. You know what happened though? They figured it out. All on their own, that playing the body in a safe way, is ok, you aren't going to die. We saw almost zero carryover to games. The kids that got checking or roughing penalties were the same ones getting them in the first half of the season.


Teach them, demonstrate and then hold them accountable.

I don't think anyone is saying it's difficult and I think everyone understands what you are saying. What I and others are saying is that it isn't happening overall. Maybe in certain teams or small pockets but overall nationally it's not happening.

[zambonidriver]

Cary Eades when he was the coach at Warroad referred to the way they played as the bump game. I think there is a difference in what taking checking out of the game and what Eades term as the bump game is to take the big open ice hits out and the behind stuff out of the game. I think if rubs and getting in the hands is taught and taught the proper way most refs will let contact slide. teach contact as opposed to collision.

[JSR]

Cary Eades when he was the coach at Warroad referred to the way they played as the bump game. I think there is a difference in what taking checking out of the game and what Eades term as the bump game is to take the big open ice hits out and the behind stuff out of the game. I think if rubs and getting in the hands is taught and taught the proper way most refs will let contact slide. teach contact as opposed to collision.

I wish that was the case. I go out of my way to teach my son hand to hand and to rub kids out on the boards as a squirt. He executes the "squirt rub" really really well. He also gets sent to the penalty box for checking every single time. I tell him to just keep doing it because it's the right way to play the game and his coaches reinforce that same message. Rather him get penalties playing the right way than not doing it correctly just because the officiating doesn't understand the difference.

[imlisteningtothefnsong]

I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.

[old goalie85]

I see it every bantam game my son plays in. The sad part is not only does this parent not know what a clean check is. It is her third kid playing BAA. The worst part is I have to ride home w/her.

[zambonidriver]

I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.

Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.

[JSR]

I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.

Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.

You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.

[imlisteningtothefnsong]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^!!!! Agree 100%. Injuries are a part of life. Whether, you fall off the rocks playing in the Florida surf, (my 12 year old, awesome scars!!) or play sports. Contact is not the issue ask the girls at the U about their concussions.

[Sats81]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^!!!! Agree 100%. Injuries are a part of life. Whether, you fall off the rocks playing in the Florida surf, (my 12 year old, awesome scars!!) or play sports. Contact is not the issue ask the girls at the U about their concussions.

Bingo.

[Hockeyfan2000]

I have no problem with body checking and would like to see it back at the Peewee level. I think Squits are too young to make good decisions about when they should hit and when they shouldnt. That said I blame the coaches and parents for the blow up hits at the Bantam level. If a coach would sit a kid for a cheap shot the kid isn't going to continue to do it. However, I have seen too many kids who are 6 feet 175 pounds come in on a kid who is 5'2" 120 pounds with elbows up and unleash a brutal hit. Why? There is no reason for these types of hits. The idea of a body check is to take the kid off the puck not to send them to the hospital. Parents and coaches that cheer these types of hits are a discredit to the sport. In addition, the referees need to call the first cheap shot of a game. When referees let the first couple go the game gets out of hand and the referees spend the next 20 minutes calling every little infraction. It takes until the 3rd period to actually see some hockey played.

Just because kids can get hurt doing lots of things, doesn't make it ok for them to go on the ice and try to injury another player. If that is all they have in their game maybe they need to find a different sport.

Contact isn't the issue, cheap shots are the issue and until the "adults" get this under control this will continue to be a problem.

[zambonidriver]

I have no problem with body checking and would like to see it back at the Peewee level. I think Squits are too young to make good decisions about when they should hit and when they shouldnt. That said I blame the coaches and parents for the blow up hits at the Bantam level. If a coach would sit a kid for a cheap shot the kid isn't going to continue to do it. However, I have seen too many kids who are 6 feet 175 pounds come in on a kid who is 5'2" 120 pounds with elbows up and unleash a brutal hit. Why? There is no reason for these types of hits. The idea of a body check is to take the kid off the puck not to send them to the hospital. Parents and coaches that cheer these types of hits are a discredit to the sport. In addition, the referees need to call the first cheap shot of a game. When referees let the first couple go the game gets out of hand and the referees spend the next 20 minutes calling every little infraction. It takes until the 3rd period to actually see some hockey played. You are always going to have cheap shots because of different personalities. My dad used to tell me it is not whether you win or lose it is how you play the game. Teach proper contact and this stuff for the most part goes away. We were taught near leg to the middle of the body head up lower shoulder and engage through the player with the idea of gaining the puck. The drills used to teach this way of playing are tedious and laborious and the kids don't want to do them and they need to be repeated every practice. Ice time is a major problem an hour is not enough to practice all the skills.

Just because kids can get hurt doing lots of things, doesn't make it ok for them to go on the ice and try to injury another player. If that is all they have in their game maybe they need to find a different sport.

Contact isn't the issue, cheap shots are the issue and until the "adults" get this under control this will continue to be a problem.

[Hockeyfan2000]

I agree zambonidriver - those types of drills are tedious and time is short but this is for the safety of our kids. I would like to believe if these drills were practiced, most of the cheap hits would end. We still need the adults to take responsibility for their kids/team and not cheer the cheap shots. The big hits are for NHL players not 13,14 and 15 year old kids especially when the kid on the receiving end gives up 6 inches and 50 pounds.

The message should be clear, check to get the player off the puck don't check to injury. I have already seen way too many checks that could have or did cause injury this year.

[imlisteningtothefnsong]

Quote-
Just because kids can get hurt doing lots of things, doesn't make it ok for them to go on the ice and try to injury another player. If that is all


Very true, but that is not hockey's problem. It is a parent problem, or possibly a coaching problem. Discipline the problems not the sport!!
Hockey lives matter!!!