HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

whos_it wrote:

WB6162 wrote:

bender09 wrote:i think everyone on this board knows that this topic is not ligetament, checking will not be banned in high school hockey or any other level. living in minnesota we all take risks driving in the winter why don't we go to congress on why no one should be able to drive in the winter cause there is ice.

Back to reality, yes I agree. Checking will never be banned but I think we may see it restricted so severely that the game is going to look completely different in a few years and I think that will be a great thing.

Personally, I think any check from behind or a check that looks REMOTELY like it was intended to injure and not a part of trying to get the puck and continue play--the player should be ejected and suspended for 5 games first offense and the head coach with him.

Now these comments I have no problem with. (I couldn't stay off the forum). I was at a game this weekend. Checking after the puck was gone was the norm. If the puck is not on the stick when the check is made, give em all a major. I have no issue with that. Way to much hitting for effect instead of end result.

I'm glad you came back! I do get overemotional on this subject I'll admit. I love hockey, I love the passing, the sweet plays and the kids who can really skate. I also love the clean hits that really help their team. What I hate is what the bully parents and their overinvolvement in the sport has done to it. A team starts getting outplayed so the coaches send these kids out to head hunt and listen to the parents encourage it from the bleachers, it makes me sick.

Injury in sport is something that I have thought about off and on over the years. I have had several in hockey and seen some pretty bad stuff. During one weekend Bantam A tournament we saw three ambulances.

I can't get my arms around it. If a business had a safety record like this it would be shut down, there would be multiple law suits. How many business require that an EMT be no the premise like we do for a tournament?

Don't give me the "life if full of risk" BS. Life is full of risk, yet we all measure risk and decide where to take risk and where to avoid it.

I am not suggesting anything, my kids will continue to play... I just wish I could figure it out in my own head.

a1puck wrote:Injury in sport is something that I have thought about off and on over the years. I have had several in hockey and seen some pretty bad stuff. During one weekend Bantam A tournament we saw three ambulances.

I can't get my arms around it. If a business had a safety record like this it would be shut down, there would be multiple law suits. How many business require that an EMT be no the premise like we do for a tournament?

Don't give me the "life if full of risk" BS. Life is full of risk, yet we all measure risk and decide where to take risk and where to avoid it.

I am not suggesting anything, my kids will continue to play... I just wish I could figure it out in my own head.

What I would like to know is do the kids understand the risk? They are the ones who have to live with the consequences their entire life. This is the question that haunts me as a hockey parent.

Young people don't understand risk. They are invincible. See the article below from ABC News.

Teen Brain Blamed for Reckless Driving
Researchers Link Underdeveloped Brain to Unsafe Driving Among Teens
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2005—

Teen drivers often take chances behind the wheel. Those pushing for tougher teen licensing laws now say the latest science may help explain why.

Researchers studying the brain say the last section to develop -- the frontal lobes -- may not mature until a person is age 25 or beyond.

"The frontal lobes are sort of the executive center of the brain -- the part of the brain that's responsible for planning, organizing, anticipating the consequences of one's actions," said Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neurophysiologist.

The research was cited by Virginia lawmakers who are pushing a bill to ban cell phone use by young teen drivers. A similar bill is up for debate in Maryland, along with a proposed measure to limit the number of passengers who can ride with a teen driver.

"The studies point to the fact that teens are taking the highest risk because in some respects the brains don't know any better," said William Bronrott, a Democratic legislator representing Montgomery County in Maryland's House of Delegates.

Researchers are quick to point out more study is needed to prove that what's happening in the teen brain directly impacts behavior.

But at Philadelphia's Temple University, researchers found young drivers were more likely to make risky decisions if their friends were present. For teen drivers, the risk of a crash doubles with just one extra passenger, the study found

.

The problem isn't checking, it's the refs that refuse to call the blatant cheap shots and allow the game to get out of hand. I've seen it all too many times and chalked up to "let 'em play".

If the refs would pull their whistles out of their pockets and call the interferences, boardings, elbows, roughings, that would go a long way towards curbing some of the injuries.

WB6162 wrote:

a1puck wrote:Injury in sport is something that I have thought about off and on over the years. I have had several in hockey and seen some pretty bad stuff. During one weekend Bantam A tournament we saw three ambulances.

I can't get my arms around it. If a business had a safety record like this it would be shut down, there would be multiple law suits. How many business require that an EMT be no the premise like we do for a tournament?

Don't give me the "life if full of risk" BS. Life is full of risk, yet we all measure risk and decide where to take risk and where to avoid it.

I am not suggesting anything, my kids will continue to play... I just wish I could figure it out in my own head.

What I would like to know is do the kids understand the risk? They are the ones who have to live with the consequences their entire life. This is the question that haunts me as a hockey parent.

Even if the kid doesn't understand the risk his parents still have to sign a permission slip to play the game don't they? His parents should very well understand the risk. If you think the sport is too dangerous for your son, don't let him play. Also, the nature of doing business is 100% different from the nature of playing a contact sport.

warriors41 wrote:

WB6162 wrote:

a1puck wrote:Injury in sport is something that I have thought about off and on over the years. I have had several in hockey and seen some pretty bad stuff. During one weekend Bantam A tournament we saw three ambulances.

I can't get my arms around it. If a business had a safety record like this it would be shut down, there would be multiple law suits. How many business require that an EMT be no the premise like we do for a tournament?

Don't give me the "life if full of risk" BS. Life is full of risk, yet we all measure risk and decide where to take risk and where to avoid it.

I am not suggesting anything, my kids will continue to play... I just wish I could figure it out in my own head.

What I would like to know is do the kids understand the risk? They are the ones who have to live with the consequences their entire life. This is the question that haunts me as a hockey parent.

Even if the kid doesn't understand the risk his parents still have to sign a permission slip to play the game don't they? His parents should very well understand the risk. If you think the sport is too dangerous for your son, don't let him play. Also, the nature of doing business is 100% different from the nature of playing a contact sport.

I've signed the permission slips, you're 100% right. Maybe the HS League should sign a slip for me saying they will do their best to keep head hunting goons and irresponsible coaches out of the game.

Have any of you folks ever wanted to grab your son off the ice when games get cheap and chippy? I have, in fact the only reason I don't is because I wouldn't want to embarrass my son in front of his team.

Isn't that crazy? When he was a little guy I would have died to keep him out of danger, now he's 16 and I allow him to be on the same ice with kids who want to put a big hit on someone and are encouraged by their coaches AND PARENTS to hit someone hard. Will MY son "turn the wrong way at the last minute"? Will yours? I pray not. I used to love watching my son play hockey, now I am scared half the time.

Yeah I know, pull your skirt up right?

I make him wear a seatbelt, I make him do his homework, I bring him to the dentist, doctor and I paid for his braces. I do everything I can think of to keep him safe except I willingly let him go out on that ice now that it's a different game than it was just a couple of years ago.

I wish he would have quit and found something else, I really do. And he's a hell of a player.

Also, the nature of doing business is 100% different from the nature of playing a contact sport.

EXACTLY my point. Why is this? Why are we so willing to accept risk in one area, and be so willing to take legal action in another, when presented with a similar amount of risk?

I know a man that plays adult hockey every chance he gets. He sued the city a few years back when he slipped in a parking lot. I get so confused.

a1puck wrote:

Also, the nature of doing business is 100% different from the nature of playing a contact sport.

EXACTLY my point. Why is this? Why are we so willing to accept risk in one area, and be so willing to take legal action in another, when presented with a similar amount of risk?

I know a man that plays adult hockey every chance he gets. He sued the city a few years back when he slipped in a parking lot. I get so confused.

Instead of wondering why he sued for the parking lot and plays hockey, ask why was he able to sue for the parking lot. May I say because walking across a parking lot is supposed to be a mundane activity which has little if any anticipated pleasure. Same with work. Most don't want to be there in the first place. They sure as hell don't want to get hurt doing something they grudgingly do in the first place.

Hockey is bigtime fun. You are willing to assume a little risk when having fun. Riding gokarts, hunting, hiking, water sports, playing softball, pickup basketball and the like all have risk. If we were forced to do any of them, we would sue everytime we got hurt. We choose to do them and thus assume some risk. Hockey is the same. If it were a class forced on the students, there would be lawsuits galore.

These are the reasons I allowed my son to face the risk. The padded room, free from risk, isn't the life we want or the world we want to live in at my house.

Again, getting in the car has far more risk than ANY activity we regularily do yet we do it anyway. Don't try to figure it out, just be glad you didn't have to WALK over the river and through the woods to get to Grandmother's house. You would have had to have left in October.

muckandgrind wrote:The problem isn't checking, it's the refs that refuse to call the blatant cheap shots and allow the game to get out of hand. I've seen it all too many times and chalked up to "let 'em play".

If the refs would pull their whistles out of their pockets and call the interferences, boardings, elbows, roughings, that would go a long way towards curbing some of the injuries.

While I don't disagree with you, it is just impractical. As soon as a ref starts to call a game the way it is written the coaches get all over him, and it only escalates from there. Every few years USA Hockey comes out with "points of emphasis" every time they do this the tight calls last a couple of weeks before reverting back to the "old way".

One of the biggest problems hockey and really all sports face is a lack of quality officials. Few want the headache, the politics, the whole kit and kabootle that goes along with officiating. I gave it up after 20+ years because of all the BS (though I still do football because there is far less BS) and many of my contemporaries left as well around the same time.

My personal feeling is parents invest so much into their kids hockey development they don't want to see a game filled with penalties. Instead of working to reduce penalties they and their boards work to reduce the quality of officials. Unless USA Hockey decides to take a stand nothing will ever happen on a local or state level. At levels USA Hockey run, along with the NHL you have a much higher caliber of referee, the same call that gets a pro 5 minutes for high sticking gets a Bantam nothing. The same call that gets a kid in the USHL tossed out of game gets a Bantam nothing. I'm not advocating getting those refs to do a bantam game, I am adocating that there has to be a better process for evaluating, training, and mentoring officials.

Personally, I'd like to see checking taken out of the peewee and bantam levels and let the HS and Midget coaches teach the players how to give and recieve a body check. Maybe the HS coaches can teach the proper techniques of seperating the puck frm the player instead of leaving that to a youth hockey coach who is most likely volunteering his time because his kid is playing on that team.

What we would end up with is a higher skilled player in HS and Midgets who's speed and skill would outpace the big, unskilled bad skaters who have to resort to playing the body instead of the puck. The "Goons" will be playing Junior Gold or Junior A Tier III where they can highlight their skill set.

As for it being the Officials fault? GIVE ME A BREAK. A few years ago, USA Hockey came out with the "New Standards" and was instructing the officals to call a tighter game. My son was playing Elite II then and the Elite II league implimented the "New Standards" because it would benefit the players since the HS league had said they would be implimenting them too. The Elite II season went along smoothly with the players and coaches adjusting fairly quickly to the closeness of the calls. The game pace picked up and we had a great time with lots of competetive games. When the HS season came around, the game was being call with the "New Standards" but not to the liking of some players, coaches and fans. It didn't take long before the game was called the same old way it was before. There were too many unskilled goons, crappy coaches and moronic fans and parents to see the benefits of a cleaner, faster paced game. It worked in the Elite League and Elite II because you had a higher skilled player and parents that cared more about skill developement then just getting to play.

RLStars wrote:Personally, I'd like to see checking taken out of the peewee and bantam levels and let the HS and Midget coaches teach the players how to give and recieve a body check. Maybe the HS coaches can teach the proper techniques of seperating the puck frm the player instead of leaving that to a youth hockey coach who is most likely volunteering his time because his kid is playing on that team.

I like that idea.

What we would end up with is a higher skilled player in HS and Midgets who's speed and skill would outpace the big, unskilled bad skaters who have to resort to playing the body instead of the puck. The "Goons" will be playing Junior Gold or Junior A Tier III where they can highlight their skill set.

I think that's kind of an unfair statement. There are many very skilled players in Jr Gold for many reasons, sometimes just sheer numbers. Edina probably has a Jr Gold team that would smoke most Varsity teams.

As for it being the Officials fault? GIVE ME A BREAK. A few years ago, USA Hockey came out with the "New Standards" and was instructing the officals to call a tighter game. My son was playing Elite II then and the Elite II league implimented the "New Standards" because it would benefit the players since the HS league had said they would be implimenting them too. The Elite II season went along smoothly with the players and coaches adjusting fairly quickly to the closeness of the calls. The game pace picked up and we had a great time with lots of competetive games. When the HS season came around, the game was being call with the "New Standards" but not to the liking of some players, coaches and fans. It didn't take long before the game was called the same old way it was before. There were too many unskilled goons, crappy coaches and moronic fans and parents to see the benefits of a cleaner, faster paced game. It worked in the Elite League and Elite II because you had a higher skilled player and parents that cared more about skill developement then just getting to play.

You have to understand that it's in the SW coaching manual to argue every call and the parents pick up on that. The worst group I have ever seen.

WB6162 wrote: I think that's kind of an unfair statement. There are many very skilled players in Jr Gold for many reasons, sometimes just sheer numbers. Edina probably has a Jr Gold team that would smoke most Varsity teams.

You are correct, there are some good players in Junior Gold and Teir III and I wasn't trying to say there was only bad players in those leagues and it would be unfair to not admit that.

WB6162 wrote:

nofinish wrote:MN District 6 youth hockey is already working towards no checking. If a player makes a check (legal ones) chances are the dist 6 refs will give him a penalty.

If coaches properly teach how to give and take a check injuries would be minimized.

There are coaches who are instructing and encouraging the "big hits" believe you me. Simple solution, ban all checking and allow a little pushing and elbowing but no impacts. I have a cousin in a wheelchair because of a hit from behind in a hockey game.

We all need to think about this one, it could be your kid.

The problem as I see it is the officating. The rules are in place, the refs just need to enforce them.

With any check, there is an intent on the part of the defensive player. Is he just trying to seperate the puck from the man through proper angling or is his check too excessive or reckless or dangerously nature? There are so many non calls that are not being made that should be. How many checking from behinds do you see that are not called? How many charges do you see that are not called? How many times to you see a defenseive player leaving his feet, leaping into a offensives player in order to excellerate his hit? How many times to you see hand/elbows up by a players throat and face? Once refs start making the calls, throwing out more 2-10's, ejecting more players, you'll start seeing them play the game differently.

I can't believe this topic is still going on. Lace up the skates and play the game the way it's suppose to be played. That means with checking.

High Flyer wrote:

WB6162 wrote:

nofinish wrote:MN District 6 youth hockey is already working towards no checking. If a player makes a check (legal ones) chances are the dist 6 refs will give him a penalty.

If coaches properly teach how to give and take a check injuries would be minimized.

There are coaches who are instructing and encouraging the "big hits" believe you me. Simple solution, ban all checking and allow a little pushing and elbowing but no impacts. I have a cousin in a wheelchair because of a hit from behind in a hockey game.

We all need to think about this one, it could be your kid.

The problem as I see it is the officating. The rules are in place, the refs just need to enforce them.

With any check, there is an intent on the part of the defensive player. Is he just trying to seperate the puck from the man through proper angling or is his check too excessive or reckless or dangerously nature? There are so many non calls that are not being made that should be. How many checking from behinds do you see that are not called? How many charges do you see that are not called? How many times to you see a defenseive player leaving his feet, leaping into a offensives player in order to excellerate his hit? How many times to you see hand/elbows up by a players throat and face? Once refs start making the calls, throwing out more 2-10's, ejecting more players, you'll start seeing them play the game differently.

Better yet, when a player visciously attacks and hurts another player...the offending player should be suspended until the player he hits is able to return to game action.

Obviously, this type of punishment should only be doled out on the obvious reckless hits, and we've all seen them. This shouldn't be tough to figure out.

I don't think checking should be eliminated. The emphasis should just be focused on making the smart hockey play, not the big hit. How many times do you see a kid not make the proper play, so he can maybe drill the kid w/ his head down or whatever.
Checking definately has a place in hockey, maybe it just needs to get back into its proper place.

I was thinking about this once again. I was at a game when I saw a kid take a nice clean hockey hit. In the same way he has always been, the kid was worthless the rest of the game. Looking over his shoulder, gliding into corners, etc.

There have been many kids like this during the years that I have played and watched the game. As long as checking and especially, hard checking, takes several of a particular teams players out of the game psychologically, coaches will ask for the hits, even if they are more for effect as apposed to taking a player off the puck.

Long story short, we ask the coach to win and intimidating kids into a level of play below where they are when not worried about a check will continue. I can live with that but I am sure some of you can't. Just another angle on the hitting thing.

whos_it wrote:I was thinking about this once again. I was at a game when I saw a kid take a nice clean hockey hit. In the same way he has always been, the kid was worthless the rest of the game. Looking over his shoulder, gliding into corners, etc.

There have been many kids like this during the years that I have played and watched the game. As long as checking and especially, hard checking, takes several of a particular teams players out of the game psychologically, coaches will ask for the hits, even if they are more for effect as apposed to taking a player off the puck.

Long story short, we ask the coach to win and intimidating kids into a level of play below where they are when not worried about a check will continue. I can live with that but I am sure some of you can't. Just another angle on the hitting thing.

Short answer is that clean, legal hits should never intimidate players! If a player alters his game after absorbing a clean, legal hit - shame on that player and his coach needs to re-evaluate his standing on the team.

I was part of a pretty physical up-north team. The hitting excited our fans and the energy translated to other players on our team. It can change momentum and the outcome of a game with the flip of a switch. All you naysayers should tune into a Wild game once and watch #22 Cal Clutterbuck and tell me hitting should no longer be apart of our game. He layed 3 Canadiens out on 1 shift last night and 30 seconds later scored a sweet goal off the end wall to give us a 2 goal lead. His presence alone was a big difference in the game. I agree with Whos_it 100%. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

schwang17 wrote:I was part of a pretty physical up-north team. The hitting excited our fans and the energy translated to other players on our team. It can change momentum and the outcome of a game with the flip of a switch. All you naysayers should tune into a Wild game once and watch #22 Cal Clutterbuck and tell me hitting should no longer be apart of our game. He layed 3 Canadiens out on 1 shift last night and 30 seconds later scored a sweet goal off the end wall to give us a 2 goal lead. His presence alone was a big difference in the game. I agree with Whos_it 100%. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

The OP was not calling for checking to removed from the game at every level, he specifically questions the need for checking at the HS level, thence the topic subject named "High School Hockey without checking?". I on the other hand, question whether or not USA hockey would be better off removing it from the peewee and or bantam level and instead, let the HS or Midgets coaches teach the proper way to give and receive a body check.

whos_it wrote:I was thinking about this once again. I was at a game when I saw a kid take a nice clean hockey hit. In the same way he has always been, the kid was worthless the rest of the game. Looking over his shoulder, gliding into corners, etc.

There have been many kids like this during the years that I have played and watched the game. As long as checking and especially, hard checking, takes several of a particular teams players out of the game psychologically, coaches will ask for the hits, even if they are more for effect as apposed to taking a player off the puck.

Long story short, we ask the coach to win and intimidating kids into a level of play below where they are when not worried about a check will continue. I can live with that but I am sure some of you can't. Just another angle on the hitting thing.

I'm not sure what level you were watching or are referring too, but that is my point. The player who was intimidated, scared or possibly hurt by the check he had received had to change his game because of it. Changing his game along with his line mates will affect their skill development during that game for sure. Take that hit and all the others out of the game at peewees and you will have more highly skilled players who have the ability to skate with the puck, be patient enough to make the good pass and find the open player in front of the net. It would also force the defensive players to focus on improved skating and stick checking skills before they start locking on a player to deskate them.

I've seen this first hand as I have coached at all levels of youth hockey as my son moved up. I have coached kids who were by far some of the more skilled players on the ice as squirts and when they are introduced to checking as peewees, were never the same player again. Even though I did my best to teach them how to take the check, with the help of some former D1 players, it didn't seem to help. Some quit before HS and others went from the star squirt to a forth line varsity player.

By taking checking out of peewees and possibly bantams, you would give that squirt a chance to grow and catch up developmentally to the bigger players that rely on checking to make up for the lack of speed that the smaller players have. The bigger player would also be forced to work on his skating and will be better off for it by the time HS rolls around. Sounds like a win - win for everyone, even the HS coaches who get more players with better skills, skating abilities and speed to fill his roster.

Checking is what makes hockey great!

nickmon3 wrote:Checking is what makes hockey great!

I don't know about the open ice hits and the hard hits against the boards. The checking was meant to dislodge the puck or break up a play against a player attempting to carry the puck. I think if the refs would strictly enforce these guidelines, then the hitting would not be a problem.

Who wants to watch some hotdog kid carry the puck coast to coast time after time and score because he can? There needs to be a physical balance to the game.

The thing I don't like, and we've all seen it is when a superior team starts getting hit hard by kids who are clearly outclassed skillwise.

That's when the refs need to take the game back and start ejecting players and coaches.

this whole disscussion is stupid.

hockeysnipes and PoniesDad45, in my opinion, have hit the nail on the head for this whole thread:
1. Hockey is physical. Check is and always will be a part of the game.
2. The point of checking is "to dislodge the puck or break up a play against a player attempting to carry the puck" not to show how tough you are and knock someone down who isn't in the play.
3. If refs called the game as is written, there would be little issue. That doesn't happen.

This thread has turned into some saying exactly what I've listed above and others responding with "checking needs to be in hockey." No one is really disagreeing here. When kids, whose brains haven't developed to the point where they think clearly about the consequences of what they do, are on the ice to hit and hurt instead of pass and score, the game is ruined.