HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Alot of talk internationaly this rule might happen.

As long as they allow body contact I'm okay with it. Checking is an overrated part of the game in that when done improperly it takes away from the game.

I think it would be a mistake. Learning to check early teaches the player not only how to deliver a check but how to protect himself when he is being checked. I think removing checking from pee wees and bantam would, over the long run, have a negative effect. I would actually make a case for checking to be introduced earlier, possibly squirts.

There was an intersting article written by Kim McCullough in LPH about the alarmingly high rate of concussions in womens hockey. The study she cites claims women hockey players expereince double the concussion rate than boys. One school of thought is women don't check therefore are not taught how to anticipate body contact or how to protect themselves. This same school of thought has been shared with me by local high school varsity level women's coaches.

Here's the article:
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/965mccullough.html

I could get behind an initiative to delay checking in youth hockey. I guess my thinking is that more kids would stay and play beyond squirts if they knew they were not going to get killed in the corners. It would benefit those kids that aren't as quick to develop physically at age 10-12 too. I also have no problem with physical play still being allowed.

the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to 6'4'' 240lbs. would you be scared at 11 years old?

nope .. can't agree with this in the least bit.

I'd suggest adding in a Midget level between Pee Wee and Bantam to minimize physical advantages rather than this. If any of you watch as much hockey as I do in your local rink, physical play is what MANY (NOT ALL) kids enjoy about it. And no, I am not saying checking at Mighty Mites!!

Also, moving the checking age to squirt would not be a bad idea as well. I believe the '00 level will be checking during next summer. Some instruction would be great before some kid takes and elbow to the back of the head!!!

Eliminating checking for that long would most likely just increase the amount of cheap shots / tripping / hooking that cause most injuries on the ice (assuming here.)

bella wrote:the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to 6'4'' 240lbs. would you be scared at 11 years old?

I it seperates the men from the boys. I think that's why the 4'10 70 lbs who was on the a squirt team team is now on the b2 pee wee team.

dont shoot the messenger this rule will probably be implemented awww.sciencenews.org/.../In_youth_hockey,_more_contact_means_more_injuries - at some point in the near future and your wrong the small kid will be on the a team

bella wrote:dont shoot the messenger

BANG!

It's just easier this way

bella wrote:the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to

6'4'' 240lbs.

would you be scared at 11 years old?

Hey, you must coach HD41's kid.

High Off The Glass wrote:

bella wrote:the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to

6'4'' 240lbs.

would you be scared at 11 years old?

Hey, you must coach HD41's kid.

I wish. Mine's hit a little plateau. Turned 7 and is still only 6'3" 215lbs. We're worried his growth may have peaked early.

HockeyDad41 wrote:

High Off The Glass wrote:

bella wrote:the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to would you be scared at 11 years old?

Hey, you must coach HD41's kid.

I wish. Mine's hit a little plateau. Turned 7 and is still only 6'3" 215lbs. We're worried his growth may have peaked early.

Oh he will be fine, he still has another 100 lbs. to go before he hits moms weight

It's all genetics

Are the same people pushing for this also pushing to take tackling out of youth football?

Give me a break.

bella wrote:dont shoot the messenger this rule will probably be implemented awww.sciencenews.org/.../In_youth_hockey,_more_contact_means_more_injuries - at some point in the near future and your wrong the small kid will be on the a team

How on Earth did you get anything out of this article that said this rule would be implemented in the near future? And implemented internationally???

Pudda_Puck_In_Her_Ear wrote:nope .. can't agree with this in the least bit.

I'd suggest adding in a Midget level between Pee Wee and Bantam to minimize physical advantages rather than this. If any of you watch as much hockey as I do in your local rink, physical play is what MANY (NOT ALL) kids enjoy about it. And no, I am not saying checking at Mighty Mites!!

Also, moving the checking age to squirt would not be a bad idea as well. I believe the '00 level will be checking during next summer. Some instruction would be great before some kid takes and elbow to the back of the head!!!

Eliminating checking for that long would most likely just increase the amount of cheap shots / tripping / hooking that cause most injuries on the ice (assuming here.)

MANY ? maybe before they actually do it ... kinda like football. The kids think its really cool idea until they realize that someone will also be hitting THEM ... then not so much.

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

Pudda_Puck_In_Her_Ear wrote:nope .. can't agree with this in the least bit.

I'd suggest adding in a Midget level between Pee Wee and Bantam to minimize physical advantages rather than this. If any of you watch as much hockey as I do in your local rink, physical play is what MANY (NOT ALL) kids enjoy about it. And no, I am not saying checking at Mighty Mites!!

Also, moving the checking age to squirt would not be a bad idea as well. I believe the '00 level will be checking during next summer. Some instruction would be great before some kid takes and elbow to the back of the head!!!

Eliminating checking for that long would most likely just increase the amount of cheap shots / tripping / hooking that cause most injuries on the ice (assuming here.)

MANY ? maybe before they actually do it ... kinda like football. The kids think its really cool idea until they realize that someone will also be hitting THEM ... then not so much.

um, no. There was checking at the '99 level this summer. MANY kids thought it was a blast. But in actuality, I was not specifically talking about checking ... just mostly the physical aspect of the game.

HeShootsHeScores wrote:

bella wrote:the range of kids sizes on our pee wee team range from 4'10 70lbs to 6'4'' 240lbs. would you be scared at 11 years old?

I it seperates the men from the boys. I think that's why the 4'10 70 lbs who was on the a squirt team team is now on the b2 pee wee team.

They're ALL boys. Problem Is that 4'10 " 70 lbs kid will grow but by that time he has quit because all the kids who can't skate have taken out there frustrations on him.

These are kids and their judgement isn't the best so if the ref, coach and parents ( the ones yelling "HIT HIM" ) don't enforce/teach how and when to check it then too many times its with the intent to inflict pain.

How many times have you seen someone get checked hard and the first thing that kid does is find the smallest kid on the other team and tries to light them up. I have seen too many concussions in the last year and its beginning to change my opinion about when checking should be allowed.

Pudda_Puck_In_Her_Ear wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

Pudda_Puck_In_Her_Ear wrote:nope .. can't agree with this in the least bit.

I'd suggest adding in a Midget level between Pee Wee and Bantam to minimize physical advantages rather than this. If any of you watch as much hockey as I do in your local rink, physical play is what MANY (NOT ALL) kids enjoy about it. And no, I am not saying checking at Mighty Mites!!

Also, moving the checking age to squirt would not be a bad idea as well. I believe the '00 level will be checking during next summer. Some instruction would be great before some kid takes and elbow to the back of the head!!!

Eliminating checking for that long would most likely just increase the amount of cheap shots / tripping / hooking that cause most injuries on the ice (assuming here.)

MANY ? maybe before they actually do it ... kinda like football. The kids think its really cool idea until they realize that someone will also be hitting THEM ... then not so much.

um, no. There was checking at the '99 level this summer. MANY kids thought it was a blast. But in actuality, I was not specifically talking about checking ... just mostly the physical aspect of the game.

99 is a single year and are still fairly close in size ... wait till the size difference in association with a 2 year age window.

Well if they do vote to get rid of checking then I hope they vote to get rid of back checking too. I think most kids would be in favor of that!

ThePuckStopsHere wrote:

HockeyDad41 wrote:

High Off The Glass wrote: Hey, you must coach HD41's kid.

I wish. Mine's hit a little plateau. Turned 7 and is still only 6'3" 215lbs. We're worried his growth may have peaked early.

Oh he will be fine, he still has another 100 lbs. to go before he hits moms weight

It's all genetics

I know, she's huge.

No need to eliminate checking.

This is something that we can learn from Tier 1 AAA hockey ... keep the window to 12 months (single year), be it Jan-Dec or July-June ... whatever ... but close the window at 12 months and minimize the size difference on these kids.

With the amount of kids we have skating in Minnesota, we can easily go to a Minor / Major system and eliminate kids playing 2 years up ... I think our association has mites grouped in 1 year windows ... but it's the peewee and bantam kids who would really benefit from that.

Also might quench some of that Tier 1 thirst by keeping kids at high level groupings all the way up. JMHO

JoltDelivered wrote:I think it would be a mistake. Learning to check early teaches the player not only how to deliver a check but how to protect himself when he is being checked. I think removing checking from pee wees and bantam would, over the long run, have a negative effect. I would actually make a case for checking to be introduced earlier, possibly squirts.

There was an intersting article written by Kim McCullough in LPH about the alarmingly high rate of concussions in womens hockey. The study she cites claims women hockey players expereince double the concussion rate than boys. One school of thought is women don't check therefore are not taught how to anticipate body contact or how to protect themselves. This same school of thought has been shared with me by local high school varsity level women's coaches.

Here's the article:
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/965mccullough.html

I read this article a few months back. Though I agree w/ Kim there's another problem in girls hockey in that too many skaters are on the ice that don't know how to skate or otherwise said, keep up with the game and thus putting themselves in harms way. Boys hockey has A B C. Because of numbers most player are playing at their proper level. Though girls hockey has A and B the truth is many of the A girls should be B girls or even C girls sometimes. So teams are comprised of no more then 1/2 often 1/4 of equal ability skater with 50-75% who shouldn't be playing at the A level they've been assigned. This is simply because there aren't enough participants and not enough girls who want to excel and be real A players. In turn putting themselves in harms way.

I've seen 12UA girls unable to lift a puck, skate backwards or do a hockey stop. I don't think I've seen that at PWA.

At the same time, allowing checking in girls will definately help the girls keep their heads up.

The size and playing at 2 year increments doesn't help either.

Not sure what I think of all this?

How many times have we seen a simple 2 minute penalty soon to be 1m30 for a CHECKING FROM BEHIND.

The referees need to take the safety of our kids more seriously and error on the side of a major penalty vs a minor.

USA! USA! USA! wrote:No need to eliminate checking.

This is something that we can learn from Tier 1 AAA hockey ... keep the window to 12 months (single year), be it Jan-Dec or July-June ... whatever ... but close the window at 12 months and minimize the size difference on these kids.

With the amount of kids we have skating in Minnesota, we can easily go to a Minor / Major system and eliminate kids playing 2 years up ... I think our association has mites grouped in 1 year windows ... but it's the peewee and bantam kids who would really benefit from that.

Also might quench some of that Tier 1 thirst by keeping kids at high level groupings all the way up. JMHO

I like the one year window for safety however, I know many teams/orginizations will not be able to form teams as they just don't have enough kids in a single year to accomplish this.

Maybe if we did like other areas did and have tryouts right after Nationals and kids that ended up on the second or third team after tryout would be able to move on with another organization if they so chose. I think it would improve morale amongst the not so fortunate and there would be more teams.

Also it is much easier to hold fundraising such as carwashes in June and July then late September/October/November...etc. I also think it would improve the bottom line of organizations as a teams deposit in a short term cd would put money quicker into organizations bank accounts and bring more money and kids into the organizations as you could spread payment for the players over a larger window.

PWD10 wrote: I like the one year window for safety however, I know many teams/orginizations will not be able to form teams as they just don't have enough kids in a single year to accomplish this.

Yes, but those organizations would be the EXCEPTION and not the RULE.

There are options to deal with low numbers at a given level, including;

1.) Not field a certain team at a certain level (i.e. Waconia A level)

2.) Co-op with another Association with lagging numbers at certain levels (i.e. Osseo-Maple Grove, SLP-Minneapolis)

3.) Have minor players Play Up with the Majors and forego a Minor team at certain levels.

Different solutions will work for different organizations in different situations. They are available though.

The main thing is we protect the most kids by RULE and not by EXCEPTION. Minnesota has the luxury of numbers to do this and we don't. Other areas without the luxury of our numbers do keep the kids in a 12 month window ... sort of backwards ... with our numbers we should be leading on this ...