HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Concussion update: proposal to ban 'blow up' hits in peewee hockey | http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/122004579.html


Checking in Pee Wee Hockey Debate close to resolution, looks like MN Hockey will vote NO on the Pee Wee Checking Ban - But USA Hockey will likely ratify.

According to Hal Tearse:
He stressed it would not eliminate all contact from the game. "In fact body contact will still be permitted," he said in an email. "The rule change will eliminate 'hitting' for the sake of it."

At least we voted right.

Does this mean if MN votes NO and USA hockey ratifies this, checking will still be allowed in MN or does it simple mean MN has made it's disagreement with the proposal known, but checking will be eliminated? The reason I ask is because of how this affects tournaments and the sanctioning of them. I would guess the only way a tournament can be sanctioned by USA hockey is if it is "no checking". Am I reading that right? The reason I am asking is because I am from out of state, but I handle scheduling and if all of a sudden MN tournaments are not sanctions, that will eliminate teams from outside the state to come to tournaments.

Wisconsin is leaning towards voting NO as well, where are the YES votes?

Colorado.

The rumor coming from the state meeting was that North Dakota would vote with Minnesota and also there are a number of other Districts that would follow Minnesota.
BTW Mr Tearse is not speaking for Mn Hockey but is voicing his personal opinion.

What is Las Vegas saying about all this? Can I get a bet in?

My understanding is if USA Hockey ratifies it will apply to all regions that are part of USA Hockey regardless of their vote. That is just my understanding and could be incorrect.

[quote="greybeard58"]The rumor coming from the state meeting was that North Dakota would vote with Minnesota and also there are a number of other Districts that would follow Minnesota.
BTW Mr Tearse is not speaking for Mn Hockey but is voicing his personal opinion.[/quote]

Wally, Hal is doing his job. Agree or disagree with him I respect him. You could argue some may only be playing the hand when it meets there own opinion as well.

We will have 2 kids playing at the Pee Wee level next season & both are looking forward to playing....checking or no checking. Kids will make any adjustments that need to be made. Hopefully the adults will follow suit.

CMR,
Not sure where the name Wally is coming from, but I just stated the Mr Tearse was speaking his opinion. His job as Coach in Chief is coaches education. His comments about how the Mn District members are going to vote is very premature as the board has not voted on this issue as of yesterday.It is one thing to speak with board permission on issues but when a title is used and one is speaking their personal opinion a disclaimer must be used so as not to mislead anyone. This applies to all Mn Hockey Board members and had Mr Tearse attended the April meeting he would have been better informed.

GB58,
Could I interpret from your post that Mr. Tearse out punted his coverage and let an ego get in the way of fact? Doesn't MNH have a policy to prevent this type of stuff. I recall Mr. Elliott getting lambasted for using this forum as a sounding board.

I'm not sure how babbling on this forum is worse than babbling in LPH.

Mr Elliott made comments that were published in newspapers, LPH was one of them and yes the board did have a private meeting about this with Mr Elliott and I am not privileged to the outcome of that meeting.

Since them Mn Hockey has policies in place including one that was passed at the April meeting. This is not the first time no disclaimer has been in place stating that this is there own opinion and not a policy position of Mn Hockey. Did he out punt his coverage, you will have to ask the Mn Hockey board of which Mr Tearse is a non-voting member. My own personal opinion is he did by a long way.

Badger_Dad wrote:Wisconsin is leaning towards voting NO as well, where are the YES votes?

Pennsylvania 105-0 in favor of no-checking. From what I have heard, Minnesota Hockey will vote to ban checking, but will push to delay the rule change until 2012-13 season.

Badger_Dad wrote:Wisconsin is leaning towards voting NO as well, where are the YES votes?

Pennsylvania 105-0 in favor of no-checking. From what I have heard, Minnesota Hockey will vote to ban checking, but will push to delay the rule change until 2012-13 season.

From what I have heard, Minnesota Hockey will vote to ban checking, but will push to delay the rule change until 2012-13 season.

Based on what? Very clearly the majority doesn't favor a change. Are you suggesting there will be votes in favor of the change when all the feedback says members don't favor a change? If that's the case it would be a very unusual way for the voters to listen to membership.

I would be in favor of checking for the more skilled Peewees-say A's and B1's, and consider banning hitting for the lower levels, especially C's. A lot of the C players have trouble with basic skating skills and have trouble controlling their own bodies, which leads to some unintentionally heavy and awkward hits.
A recent experience with a MASH team that was experiencing bodychecking for the first time ( last year Squirt going into Peewee) was pretty enlightening. They had to go against some teams that had a year of Peewees under their belt and were at a decent level of skill....I'd say B's. Our team got hammered by the bigger boys, and while sometimes it was about size (i.e. 160 lb. against a 58 lb.), at others it was a matter of our least skilled skaters simply not having the ability to avoid or defend themselves against big hits.
One of our most skilled skaters was all of 82 lbs. and adjusted fine after getting caught with his head down a couple of times, but he was a higher level B player. I worried about the C players getting out in one piece.

observer wrote:

From what I have heard, Minnesota Hockey will vote to ban checking, but will push to delay the rule change until 2012-13 season.

Based on what? Very clearly the majority doesn't favor a change. Are you suggesting there will be votes in favor of the change when all the feedback says members don't favor a change? If that's the case it would be a very unusual way for the voters to listen to membership.

Based on that I have attended MN Hockey meetings and know what they are leaning towards. USA Hockey is not listening to the feedback of their members, what makes you think Minnesota Hockey will? If you don't think this rule change is gonna happen, you haven't been paying attention. USA Hockey is gonna vote to change, and anyone that wants to remain a member will have to follow suit. The Big Bad Wolf will win again, just like they always do when they get a wild hair up their a$$ to ramrod a new rule through.

Wisconsin Voted at the WAHA Meeting this weekend, that if USA Hockey passes the Body Contact Rule they will follow suit. MN Hockey's President was there and said they will follow the rule as well if it passes with USA Hockey.

Our association President was at the meeting and supposedly MN Hockey's President was there as well.

MN did not pass the checking ban proposal. It as voted down by a 12-10 vote. I believe there were 2 no show's

J
I thought that there were closer to 28 voting board members. Do you have a list of who was missing and also who voted for and who voted against?

Also does anyone have any information as to the quality of the leagues that Canada used for the data and USA Hockey is using?

The figures state peewee level but would be interesting to see bantam stats.

greybeard58 wrote:J
I thought that there were closer to 28 voting board members. Do you have a list of who was missing and also who voted for and who voted against?

Also does anyone have any information as to the quality of the leagues that Canada used for the data and USA Hockey is using?

The figures state peewee level but would be interesting to see bantam stats.

I do not have a list--I know all the VP's of MH voted for the ban--3 director's voted for it. 2 were no shows. I was told they will post how everyone voted on the MH web site when they post the meeting notes.

Is it me or would USA Hockey have done themselves a big favor that instead of writing this rule as "banning checking" at the pee wee level, they should have looked at through more of a "marketing" eye and wrote more toward eliminating illegal hits and hits that aren't focused on separating player from puck. In other words, instead they should have proposed a rule change that would make blowup hits illegal and hits where the intent (in the opinion of the ref) was to not play the puck would also become illegal, even if those hits were deemed "legal" under todays current context. Yet still keep "checking" in place so to speak. Also, put an emphaisis on enforcing current rulles and maybe even teaaching refs to start calling the rules to their most conservative interpretation. I don't think they would have receieved near the push back they are receiving now and I think they would accomplished very close to the same agenda. I've expressed my opinion several times here and to WAHA and USA Hockey that I don't like the way the current proposal is written or how it's being presented and I think there were more viable ways to go about it.

JSR, you get it. Fact is they don't need to change rules at all, just enforce them better. Most "blowup hits" are probably already either a hit to the head penalty or charging. Intent not to play the puck in many cases is probably interference - Refs need to step up and make the tough calls.
The solution remains simple - enforce the current rules and educate coaches and players better. Maybe only us simpletons can understand this.