HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Do B, C, and D level Mites play full ice, offsides, icing, etc. or do only certain higher classfications of Mites play with all that?

HockeyStorm wrote:Do B, C, and D level Mites play full ice, offsides, icing, etc. or do only certain higher classfications of Mites play with all that?

assuming B,C, & D levels of mites are the ability groupings, and probably much on age/grade, i hope they play alot of 1/2 ice or cross ice.

Once a year do the full ice, or do it outside frequently. I would do more cross ice w/ A or top mites as well.

With regards to offsides and icing, I would have a coach with a good ability to thumb loop the breezers and keep or get a player on sides.
And for icing I would have a coach that can skate faster then a D mite and race down and stop the puck from travelling 180 feet past the 10 kids. Set it up nice so the player can SWEEEEEEP in and grab the puck. game on.

The less stoppages the better at this age.

In our association B,C, & D levels do play full ice games A's play 3 on 3 cross ice. As for the offside/icing it is pretty liberal at the B level but gets more strictly enforced as you climb the ranks. By the time kids get to D they can handle those concepts. If you blow the whistle for an offsides at the B level the majority of the kids have no idea what just happened. I have not seen an icing call at the B level.

Mccracken-I get the advantage of the cross ice for the mites and we do it alot in practice but the kids want to play "real" games with goalies. I suspect we would lose a significant number of hockey players if we only allowed one game a year.

Other sports do a much better job of easing players into games. Think about soccer. Nobody would think of taking 11 kids and having them play another team on a full pitch.

Hockey, because the rink is fixed, insists on adult-style games where I live. No coaches on the ice, which would clearly help with the offsides as mentioned above. Officials need training too, so let's give them the Mite games to work and monitor to see that they call everything. Also, we can't have kids thinking puck control isn't important, so have automatic offsides...even though the only games these kids have seen on TV play tag-up.

From observation of three seasons of Mites I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY of 6-year-olds do not understand offsides. At age 7, even the ones the have figured it out do not realize the need for a center-ice regroup. By age 8, yeah, they get it - unless they just started playing.

The chronically offside kids aren't dumb and they aren't bad hockey players...they're SIX!

Hopefully you live in an area where there is high enough participation to segment out Mites by ability, thus avoiding many of the problems. Half-ice and cross-ice for your 6 and 7 year olds removes a need to call offsides. Good luck.

O-townClown wrote:Other sports do a much better job of easing players into games. Think about soccer. Nobody would think of taking 11 kids and having them play another team on a full pitch.

Hockey, because the rink is fixed, insists on adult-style games where I live. No coaches on the ice, which would clearly help with the offsides as mentioned above. Officials need training too, so let's give them the Mite games to work and monitor to see that they call everything. Also, we can't have kids thinking puck control isn't important, so have automatic offsides...even though the only games these kids have seen on TV play tag-up.

From observation of three seasons of Mites I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY of 6-year-olds do not understand offsides. At age 7, even the ones the have figured it out do not realize the need for a center-ice regroup. By age 8, yeah, they get it - unless they just started playing.

The chronically offside kids aren't dumb and they aren't bad hockey players...they're SIX!

Hopefully you live in an area where there is high enough participation to segment out Mites by ability, thus avoiding many of the problems. Half-ice and cross-ice for your 6 and 7 year olds removes a need to call offsides. Good luck.

Correct. I am a mite coach in a south metro assn and for any 1st or 2nd year kids to play full ice is ridiculous. There are some kids who may be ready for a fuller understanding of the game where the rules are tightly called, but to structure the way you run your program to benefit them is foolish at this age. If the kids are ready at 3rd year and on to play full/rules, they have some avenues available via intermediate and advanced programs. Until then, loosely called (safety calls only) cross ice games are the way to go. The name of the game is retention and the best way to achieve that is via skill development and small ice games. We use a variety of tools to keep kids interested including introducing tennis balls or soccer balls into the mix to keep kids having fun and interested. I coached a Showcase team last spring of 1st year kids and can tell you that most weren't ready for full ice. Those games were dominated as a general rule by the best 2-3 kids on the ice. Since kids develop differently, we were really shortchanging the other kids by playing full, strict rules at this level. Plenty of time for that once they hit squirts. If we are serious about growing the game, we should be encouraging basic skill development with more shinny and less structured systems. Sorry to go Herb Brooks, but I am passionate about getting and keeping kids involved. The best way to do that is through fun and small ice games, heck even USA Hockey has come around to that thought process.

I thought we said no squirt discussions unless it was Fargo Squirt A tourney (the greatest event for youth hockey) No we have mite discussions?

Vinko Bogataj wrote:

O-townClown wrote:Other sports do a much better job of easing players into games. Think about soccer. Nobody would think of taking 11 kids and having them play another team on a full pitch.

Hockey, because the rink is fixed, insists on adult-style games where I live. No coaches on the ice, which would clearly help with the offsides as mentioned above. Officials need training too, so let's give them the Mite games to work and monitor to see that they call everything. Also, we can't have kids thinking puck control isn't important, so have automatic offsides...even though the only games these kids have seen on TV play tag-up.

From observation of three seasons of Mites I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY of 6-year-olds do not understand offsides. At age 7, even the ones the have figured it out do not realize the need for a center-ice regroup. By age 8, yeah, they get it - unless they just started playing.

The chronically offside kids aren't dumb and they aren't bad hockey players...they're SIX!

Hopefully you live in an area where there is high enough participation to segment out Mites by ability, thus avoiding many of the problems. Half-ice and cross-ice for your 6 and 7 year olds removes a need to call offsides. Good luck.

Correct. I am a mite coach in a south metro assn and for any 1st or 2nd year kids to play full ice is ridiculous. There are some kids who may be ready for a fuller understanding of the game where the rules are tightly called, but to structure the way you run your program to benefit them is foolish at this age. If the kids are ready at 3rd year and on to play full/rules, they have some avenues available via intermediate and advanced programs. Until then, loosely called (safety calls only) cross ice games are the way to go. The name of the game is retention and the best way to achieve that is via skill development and small ice games. We use a variety of tools to keep kids interested including introducing tennis balls or soccer balls into the mix to keep kids having fun and interested. I coached a Showcase team last spring of 1st year kids and can tell you that most weren't ready for full ice. Those games were dominated as a general rule by the best 2-3 kids on the ice. Since kids develop differently, we were really shortchanging the other kids by playing full, strict rules at this level. Plenty of time for that once they hit squirts. If we are serious about growing the game, we should be encouraging basic skill development with more shinny and less structured systems. Sorry to go Herb Brooks, but I am passionate about getting and keeping kids involved. The best way to do that is through fun and small ice games, heck even USA Hockey has come around to that thought process.

Vinko, I would like to come and coach with you. you make far too much logical sense for most player development programs here in north amerika. Keep up the good work!!

deleted

Faceguard, I, as have many others on this board I'm sure, have travelled to Canada many times for AAA tournaments in the summer with kids ranging in age from squirt to bantam. I have never witnessed a half-ice or cross rink game ever. I find it hard to beleive that pee wees in Canada are playing half ice games. I would be curious as to what others have seen up there. Unless of course summer AAA hockey is not a good representation of winter hockey in Canada. Then maybe I have been missing something there.

Not calling you out but just wanted to point out that in all my years I have never seen that sort of thing up there. Maybe it does exist though.

Funny, I have been advocating for 3 on 3 cross ice games for the early mites in our association for years. To date, it has fallen on deaf ears.

Faceguard79 wrote:A friend of mine who grew up in Toronto, played D1 college hockey said they split the rink into 3 games all the times up to I believe PeeWees. This is why Canadians are so good in the corners, the last year of squirt age I'm sure they get pretty aggressive in those corners since most of the game is played there.

They go to a half sheet in PeeWees and full in Bantams. Maybe it was just his association due to lack of indoor ice but he can name 6 guys he played with that played or still play in the NHL so they much have been doing something right.

I agree, full ice for Mites is ridiculous.

According to the book "Who puck is it anyway" about the St. Peterborough Pete's 10 any under play full ice and have for some time.

By the way good book, puts things into perspective.

Small ice games, cross ice games, 3 on 3 are all great tools to supplement the standard game of hockey. I believe these are great to learn the skills of small spaces. The association I am involved with went to cross ice games a couple three or four years ago for the Mite1 level and plays Full ice for the Mite 2. This years Mite2 just finished this past weekend their first Jamboree, and according to the coach was out scored about forty or fifty to three or four in three jamboree games of full ice. His only explanation is these kids had only experienced the small area type games and had zero clue on how to play the full ice. They did not know how to line up for a normal face off, did not know what offsides was, and thought that icing is what they were supposed to do. I feel bad for these kids being misguided. Yes small area games teach you certain skills, but the kids have to learn how the game is played by normal rules. The earlier they learn the Real rules and do not have to relearn bad habits the better. I am a huge advocate for the youngest of kids playing full ice for Jamborees and controlled scrimmages, and only using the small area type activities as a supplement in practice.

Agree that small area games are a great addition to practice all the way up. It'd be nice if you had a bunch of little rinks for the little kids, like little soccer, football, and baseball fields. You could still teach them the rules, without them having to skate their little legs off to learn it. A five year old doesn't have to run 90 feet after he hits the ball, but he does need to learn to run to first, not third.

Our association has gone the complete opposite way as JD's. Our kids play one full ice jamboree in the last year of mites, then we chuck 'em up to squirts. Off sides is the least of the problems. They can't skate backwards; there is no need to on small ice. Most of them don't learn puck support, because if you stand in the same spot long enough the puck will hit you in the feet. Icing is a squirt issue because in small area mites you don't control the puck, if you're pressured you shoot it, as you're never more than about 20 feet from the goal. When a kid scores 8 goals in a shift, more times than not, he learns to not pass the puck or gets a little bored and learns to be lazy on the finish.

ilike2score wrote:according to the coach was out scored about forty or fifty to three or four in three jamboree games of full ice. His only explanation is these kids had only experienced the small area type games and had zero clue on how to play the full ice. They did not know how to line up for a normal face off, did not know what offsides was, and thought that icing is what they were supposed to do.

IMO this sounds more like an indictment of your assn's development plan. 40 or 50 goal differential seems to be more than simply not knowing the rules or how to line up. Further, it sounds like a coach offering a lame excuse. "I put a great game plan in place, our 6 year olds just don't have the ability to run my version of the neutral zone trap because they weren't taught correctly last year". I don't know the details, but nobody advocates not learning skills or the basic rules of the game, but just like anything, it is a matter of degrees. What I advocate, and this is my personal opinion and not a rip on anyone or assn, is that the best spent time is used developing basic skills and keeping kids interested. Teaching systems to 5-8 year old kids is challenging to say the least and I think is detrimental to development. If you have kids who can't skate backwards, I'd be more inclined to say that you spend too much time teaching systems rather than base skills. If you have kids standing around waiting for the puck, I'd argue they aren't being coached properly or are spending too much time worrying if they are in the right spot. I think that full ice is great for grandparents and coaches who have the one kid who is super developed at age 6, but not so great for growing the game or mass of players overall. The rush to install systems and rack up won loss records at the mite level is just something I disagree with. I think we can do the game a greater service by developing skills and instilling fun into the kids who play. Cross ice games teach the kids to play fast and utilize those base skills, turning, starting/stopping that they don't do when one kid dominates a game. Its just tougher to do that when you have that much less real estate. That is what keeps them coming back and interested. To each his own I guess, but I buy into our assn's philosophy, it has netted enough success in terms of district and the occasional state titles and several players at the D1 and NHL level for me to be a believer. If we can deliver that and keep the marginal kids interested in the game, I think we've been good stewards of the sport.

IMO this sounds more like an indictment of your assn's development plan. Yes you are correct! I will give more details to better support my arguement that small ice games are a great tool only to be used as a supplement for the real game of hockey that is played on full ice. The team I spoke of is comprised of 7 and 8 year olds. The coach played college hockey and since has coached at the youth level for the past 15 years at every level from first years thru Bantam A's. Our association two or three years ago built a small rink outdoors designed to be a "Rink Rat Only" rink for the whole association. This small rink has turned into the practice rink for mites, who then play their"games" inside on cross ice. The arguement the coach explained to me and I agree with him is Yes small Ice acitivities are great as a supplement. But there is way too many skills and fundamentals needed to be learned at the very youngest of ages that can only be learned on full ice. This team I speak of has equal skating skills to the others they played in these jamborees, but zero concept on positioning when they hit the full ice. Prior to this outside small rink being built this association consistently competed and one in this league. Since the small ice only for 5 and 6 year olds they consistently get outscored 15 or 16 to 1 when they reach 7 and 8. The solution is a balance.

ilike: question for you, does the scoring imbalance/game rule deficit still exist once your assn kids are hitting squirts, peewees or bantams? Curious? Again, I feel pretty strongly that the rules of the game and systems are best learned once kids are ready for them at a later time, but obviously you feel different. Wondering because I don't see those competitive issues with our kids once they graduate to advanced mites or squirts from our mite program, so I was curious if those issues you guys run into persist as your kids get older. Can't remember if you said the change to more small ice games/shinny was more recent or not so you may not have an answer for a few years if that's the case, but curious. Didn't mean to come off as a dick, my sarcasm/joke probably didn't read the way I intended it too. That said, my wife says coming off as a dick is a chronic issue for me...

The scoring disparity just came up in the last 2-3 years, which directly correlates when the focus to small ice practices and cross ice games became the only way these kids learned Hockey. Now that these kids play full ice they are lost. I do believe the small ice games is a great tool to learn some skills and should be used as a supplement. The problem I see is that my association Only uses cross ice and a small rink rat rink to teach the first and second year kids. Now these kids are starting to play on the full size rink and they have no clue. They have to relearn the game all over.

GET A GRIP. I have two mites, u10, a squirt, and high school[ went throught ban a, pee, ect. ect.] 5 altogether the kids don't need fuul ice. let us think about size. D o you think mites need the same "PLAYING FIELD AS THE UofM, OR, how about the NHL ] PLEASE. NOT MUCH OF A TYPER. BETTER ROOFER.

Here's a couple of quotes from a wise Squirt A coach, strong program, to consider.

The team that skates best wins.
The team with the best fitness wins.

Neither has anything to do with the size of the ice or team concepts. Through squirts focus on skating and skill development. The kids figure out the game.

Sounds like the posters on this topic are all dealing with their first and oldest and are paranoid about absolutely nothing. No question 1/2 ice, or cross ice, is the best tool. Why do you think small rinks are popping up everywhere. Some of the best training facilities in the metro don't even have a full sheet. The smaller rinks help kids with quick decisions, quick passing and quick shots all of which will serve them well as they enter PeeWee. It helps to compress time and space.

ilike2score wrote:The scoring disparity just came up in the last 2-3 years, which directly correlates when the focus to small ice practices and cross ice games became the only way these kids learned Hockey. Now that these kids play full ice they are lost. I do believe the small ice games is a great tool to learn some skills and should be used as a supplement. The problem I see is that my association Only uses cross ice and a small rink rat rink to teach the first and second year kids. Now these kids are starting to play on the full size rink and they have no clue. They have to relearn the game all over.

I think I know where ilike is coming from in that we have parents of the saem thought process in our association. Our assn advocates small ice games and practices through mites and advocates small ice practices all the way through bantams. What I have found is that our kids also do not know positioning at the young ages. They also occasionally look a little lost when they go against teams that are highly articulate in systems and positioning from other areas that do not focus on small games etc.... This seems to frustrate alot of our parents. I see the forrest through the trees though and when I watch our games i see our guys tend to have better stick handling skills, better ice awareness and are more creative. At the young ages this does not translate to alot of wins necessarily when we do play full ice games. However, what i have noticed is that by the time they reach 2nd year pee wees is that an interesting "shift" starts to occur. They have figured out alot of the positioning stuff on their own but also have integrated a sense of creativity. They have tend to have better skating skills, better puck handling and they make quicker decisions. Suddenly they are starting to win more of the games and it translates all the way up to the high school. To me the full ice games at the youngest ages promotes the best two or three kids continuing to get better and separating themselves from the rest of the kdis developmentally. Small ice does not allow for this while still encouraging the growth and development of the better players. What I have found, and it is just my opinion, is that the "positioning" stuff and the "frustration over it" tends to be more about the parents and less about the kids. Again just my opinion over lots of obvervation through the years.

How does playing full ice with normal hockey rules hurt a Mite age player????I do agree as with my previous posts that small ice games are a very good supplement, but I still firmly believe it has to be a balance, and not one or the other, and yes I am bashing my own association because they believe ONLY small ice and cross ice for Mites.

ilike2score wrote:How does playing full ice with normal hockey rules hurt a Mite age player????I do agree as with my previous posts that small ice games are a very good supplement, but I still firmly believe it has to be a balance, and not one or the other, and yes I am bashing my own association because they believe ONLY small ice and cross ice for Mites.

small ice games, teach the blue line and red line in the locker room. In small ice games coach can still work on re-group, 2 pass, getting open, support, two strides and a decision, defensive coverage, etc.

HockeyStorm wrote:Do B, C, and D level Mites play full ice, offsides, icing, etc. or do only certain higher classfications of Mites play with all that?

Up here in west central Minnesota, we do not have "b, c,d" level mites. Yes, this year my son is in Mites and they are learning off sides AND are playing full ice scrimmages or games...... this is not to say i agree. Seems like there are a whole bunch of people who played very little hockey running the thing and this is how they feel we should move forward. I believe at the mite level they should be more concerned about individual skill developement rather than teaching the youngsters how to maintain a full ice game plan. I would rather see 3 on 3 half ice or cross ice games....maybe start with 2 on 2 to teach a little about passing and spreading out and moving to 3 on 3 and 4 on 4. The kids will learn the rules of the game after a few sanctioned games, unfortunately, some may not get a good solid foundation in the basic skills of the game. Not every dad is like me or several others in any association that played hockey and know the fundamentals......so they bring them to hockey practice.