HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Just found this on the USA Hockey site, where they now have a Facebook page and are asking for comments on the body checking change rule proposal. Majority of comments are against the proposal. Here is the link on USA Hockey where it links to the Facebook page and also has a survey:

http://www.usahockey.com//Template_Usah ... &ID=299508

The links work. To all take the survey and go to face book and add your comments. USA Hockey is making it easy for you to comment.

Bump.

Critical to keep this at the top for as long as possible.

To me, this survey is designed to confuse and elicit the best response so that USA Hockey can claim some support for banning checking. Of the nine questions asked, these are the three most significant.

Do you believe that the introduction of body checking skills should be done over a longer period of time in a progressive step-by-step manner?

With the factual data showing that the potential rate for injury is not increased when the introduction of body checking is delayed until Bantams, do you believe that teaching body checking for two years in Peewee practices is appropriate?

Do you believe that introducing full body checking in games at Bantams is appropriate?

It never asked the direct question: Do you support banning body checking at the peewee level.

This is a strange survey and I question it's true intension. If USA Hockey feels there are problems at the youth level, go address them. But checking at the peewee level is not a problem. I would also point out that USA Hockey, through their own insurance company (called HARP) insure participants in hockey when they sign up and currently HARP is very profitable.

frederick61 wrote:To me, this survey is designed to confuse and elicit the best response so that USA Hockey can claim some support for banning checking. Of the nine questions asked, these are the three most significant.

Do you believe that the introduction of body checking skills should be done over a longer period of time in a progressive step-by-step manner?

With the factual data showing that the potential rate for injury is not increased when the introduction of body checking is delayed until Bantams, do you believe that teaching body checking for two years in Peewee practices is appropriate?

Do you believe that introducing full body checking in games at Bantams is appropriate?

It never asked the direct question: Do you support banning body checking at the peewee level.

This is a strange survey and I question it's true intension. If USA Hockey feels there are problems at the youth level, go address them. But checking at the peewee level is not a problem. I would also point out that USA Hockey, through their own insurance company (called HARP) insure participants in hockey when they sign up and currently HARP is very profitable.

All surveys tend to have leading questions. This is no exception. There is a comment section with the last question.

The video has 286 views. Watch it, answer the survey.

The safety comparison between the first half of the video and the second half is night and day. And the first half was better hockey - way more skill.

spin-o-rama wrote:

frederick61 wrote:To me, this survey is designed to confuse and elicit the best response so that USA Hockey can claim some support for banning checking. Of the nine questions asked, these are the three most significant.

Do you believe that the introduction of body checking skills should be done over a longer period of time in a progressive step-by-step manner?

With the factual data showing that the potential rate for injury is not increased when the introduction of body checking is delayed until Bantams, do you believe that teaching body checking for two years in Peewee practices is appropriate?

Do you believe that introducing full body checking in games at Bantams is appropriate?

It never asked the direct question: Do you support banning body checking at the peewee level.

This is a strange survey and I question it's true intension. If USA Hockey feels there are problems at the youth level, go address them. But checking at the peewee level is not a problem. I would also point out that USA Hockey, through their own insurance company (called HARP) insure participants in hockey when they sign up and currently HARP is very profitable.

All surveys tend to have leading questions. This is no exception. There is a comment section with the last question.

The video has 286 views. Watch it, answer the survey.

The safety comparison between the first half of the video and the second half is night and day. And the first half was better hockey - way more skill.

I watched the video, the funny part about that video is that every other clip in the second half showed hits that are currently ILLEGAL. Then there were a handful of others that were perfectly legal hits where the guy was legitmately separating the guy from the puck but the narrator apparently thinks we are stupid and says there was no attempt to play the puck. So they mix illegal hits in with legal ones and try and brainwash you into their line of thinking. Did you watch the referees hand go up for a penalty several times. The video is misleading big time. This proposal actually does not solve the problem they illustrated in the video if you watched it carefully

They are trying to sway people. That may mean they worried.

both the survey and the video were a pathetic propaganda attempt ...

anyways ... viewed, surveyed, and posted comments.

This is everyone's chance to say their piece. If you don't chime in now, then never complain in the future. Take ten minutes out of your day to tell them how you feel.

JSR wrote:I watched the video, the funny part about that video is that every other clip in the second half showed hits that are currently ILLEGAL. Then there were a handful of others that were perfectly legal hits where the guy was legitmately separating the guy from the puck but the narrator apparently thinks we are stupid and says there was no attempt to play the puck. So they mix illegal hits in with legal ones and try and brainwash you into their line of thinking. Did you watch the referees hand go up for a penalty several times. The video is misleading big time. This proposal actually does not solve the problem they illustrated in the video if you watched it carefully

The narrator is merely pointing out that the currently legal play will be illegal under the proposal.
I support the standard moving to favor more skill. I also support the standard moving further away from injurious contact. Many checks today are defined as legal or illegal depending on if the receiver was injured (and then there's the old standby "I shouldn't be penalized for plowing him because he turned his back."). I would hope the proposed standard would mean that when a player goes a bit too far (draws a penalty), the receiver will be less likely to be injured.
More skill and fewer injuries will make hockey a better game. Is the proposal going to do that? A lot depends on the implementation, acceptance, and enforcement.

spin-o-rama wrote:

JSR wrote:I watched the video, the funny part about that video is that every other clip in the second half showed hits that are currently ILLEGAL. Then there were a handful of others that were perfectly legal hits where the guy was legitmately separating the guy from the puck but the narrator apparently thinks we are stupid and says there was no attempt to play the puck. So they mix illegal hits in with legal ones and try and brainwash you into their line of thinking. Did you watch the referees hand go up for a penalty several times. The video is misleading big time. This proposal actually does not solve the problem they illustrated in the video if you watched it carefully

The narrator is merely pointing out that the currently legal play will be illegal under the proposal.
I support the standard moving to favor more skill. I also support the standard moving further away from injurious contact. Many checks today are defined as legal or illegal depending on if the receiver was injured (and then there's the old standby "I shouldn't be penalized for plowing him because he turned his back."). I would hope the proposed standard would mean that when a player goes a bit too far (draws a penalty), the receiver will be less likely to be injured.
More skill and fewer injuries will make hockey a better game. Is the proposal going to do that? A lot depends on the implementation, acceptance, and enforcement.

You missed the point, several of the hits that "will become illegal" are already illegal and the refs arm went into the air to call a penalty even under the current rules. That is why it's propoganda. Further I saw a few legal hits that would become illegal that should not become illegal, they were perfectly acceptable.

I support getting rid of blow up hits that are clearly just for the purpose of trying to hurt another player, I also support doing what is needed to be done to clean up the currently illegal hits that happen far to often. What I do not support is arbitrarily banning checking at the pee wee level. To me there is a huge difference in what should be done compared to what is being proposed.

JSR wrote:You missed the point, several of the hits that "will become illegal" are already illegal and the refs arm went into the air to call a penalty even under the current rules. That is why it's propoganda. Further I saw a few legal hits that would become illegal that should not become illegal, they were perfectly acceptable.
I support getting rid of blow up hits that are clearly just for the purpose of trying to hurt another player, I also support doing what is needed to be done to clean up the currently illegal hits that happen far to often. What I do not support is arbitrarily banning checking at the pee wee level. To me there is a huge difference in what should be done compared to what is being proposed.

Would the penalized hits in the video have been attempted if the proposed standard was in effect? Hopefully not - therefore less chance of injury. The first half of the video showed good hockey. The game will be fine, and very possibly better, with the proposal in place.

Write in and tell them you think those hits should be legal. I wrote in support of the video's definition of legal/illegal.

spin-o-rama wrote:

JSR wrote:You missed the point, several of the hits that "will become illegal" are already illegal and the refs arm went into the air to call a penalty even under the current rules. That is why it's propoganda. Further I saw a few legal hits that would become illegal that should not become illegal, they were perfectly acceptable.
I support getting rid of blow up hits that are clearly just for the purpose of trying to hurt another player, I also support doing what is needed to be done to clean up the currently illegal hits that happen far to often. What I do not support is arbitrarily banning checking at the pee wee level. To me there is a huge difference in what should be done compared to what is being proposed.

Would the penalized hits in the video have been attempted if the proposed standard was in effect? Hopefully not - therefore less chance of injury. The first half of the video showed good hockey. The game will be fine, and very possibly better, with the proposal in place.

Write in and tell them you think those hits should be legal. I wrote in support of the video's definition of legal/illegal.

Quite possibly since I 've seen egregious hits attempted like that even at the squirt level where checking is currently not allowed....... Illegal hits are not currently controlled well enough by coaches, parents or refs, those are what need attention not the legal hits in which none of the studies I have seen show any significant cause of injuries or concussions.

On a side note, soccer has a higher overall instance of concussions and overall statistically significant higher incidence of injury overal than hockey does and there is no "hitting" in soccer, yet I've not heard anything from USA Soccer in trying to change the game of soccer??? That also tells me something about the studies that maybe some things are being overblown a tad in trying to push this proposal......

The rest of the world would tell us we are wussys if we tried to change soccer.[ futball ]

old goalie85 wrote:The rest of the world would tell us we are wussys if we tried to change soccer.[ futball ]

Yes, very manly to get carted off the field on a stretcher when barely tapped, only to come bounding right back onto the field.

spin-o-rama wrote:

frederick61 wrote:To me, this survey is designed to confuse and elicit the best response so that USA Hockey can claim some support for banning checking. Of the nine questions asked, these are the three most significant.

Do you believe that the introduction of body checking skills should be done over a longer period of time in a progressive step-by-step manner?

With the factual data showing that the potential rate for injury is not increased when the introduction of body checking is delayed until Bantams, do you believe that teaching body checking for two years in Peewee practices is appropriate?

Do you believe that introducing full body checking in games at Bantams is appropriate?

It never asked the direct question: Do you support banning body checking at the peewee level.

This is a strange survey and I question it's true intension. If USA Hockey feels there are problems at the youth level, go address them. But checking at the peewee level is not a problem. I would also point out that USA Hockey, through their own insurance company (called HARP) insure participants in hockey when they sign up and currently HARP is very profitable.

All surveys tend to have leading questions. This is no exception. There is a comment section with the last question.

The video has 286 views. Watch it, answer the survey.

The safety comparison between the first half of the video and the second half is night and day. And the first half was better hockey - way more skill.

1. Not all surveys have leading questions, this one does. Why not ask the simple question? Should body checking be banned in peewee hockey? yes or no?

2. What purpose does the video serve if most of those on this board have seen hundreds (if not thousands of youth hockey games)? If you are aiming your questions at the parent who's kid is just leaving squirts, you will find a lot of anxious parents. If you are aiming your questions at responsible people who have a long time history with the sport, you have missed the mark.

3. If USA Hockey is self-insured through HARP, doesn't USA Hockey have records on injuries at the youth hockey level. Canada did a study through their national insurance and published the results. USA Hockey should be able to make their information (results) available.

Interestingly, I logged onto the video 5 seperate times and the number of "views" didn't change (I even used two different computers).

IcePick wrote:Interestingly, I logged onto the video 5 seperate times and the number of "views" didn't change (I even used two different computers).

AH!! Black helicopters everywhere!!! Conspiracy!!!!

MnMade-4-Life wrote:

IcePick wrote:Interestingly, I logged onto the video 5 seperate times and the number of "views" didn't change (I even used two different computers).

AH!! Black helicopters everywhere!!! Conspiracy!!!!

No conspiracy. I highly doubt USA Hockey controls the Youtube view-counter. But when an earlier post referenced less than 300 video views, I was surprised by the statistic and looked into it to see if it was valid.

No check for C level Bantams and B/C level Peewees. Use C level for Recreational level so instead of quitting they can still play.

Checking for A level peewee and A/B level Bantams

How are you sentencing them to B level and never a shot at the A level? I guess after coaching for 15 yrs I never saw a kid that wanted it and worked for it never get it.

I agree very little difference in Forest Lake between low A's & top B kids.

youngblood08 wrote:No check for C level Bantams and B/C level Peewees. Use C level for Recreational level so instead of quitting they can still play.

Checking for A level peewee and A/B level Bantams

I've never understood the disregard for C players on this site. True story from tryouts last year. C player from a VERY competitive association makes the B1 team as a 2nd year Bantam. Was supposedly thisclose to making the A team. His ability to check and hit was a big part of his advancement. Imagine if this kid wasn't allowed to check as a C player? And was forced to play recreational level? It's a good thing that the coaches at the C level don't know that they shouldn't be worrying about their players' development.

How is a 1st year peewee fresh out of Squirts (where there is NO CHECKING) able to make an A Peewee team then? You are putting way too much into it. You are acting like hockey will fold up without allowing hitting at every level. Either way you look at the situation someone some where is going to feel that they are being wronged by this ruling.

Watching and Reffing games you see some teams focus way too much on the checking and others that have no business hitting. It has come down to the COACHING of Checking that has to be looked at. Maybe, with my suggestion they allow the B peewees to start checking halfway through the season after they let the skill be taught to the players.

Again NPC... How are current players that come from Squirts (with no checking) able to make A Peewee teams the 1st year, without all of this checking experience?

youngblood08 wrote:Again NPC... How are current players that come from Squirts (with no checking) able to make A Peewee teams the 1st year, without all of this checking experience?

I would say that a player that makes the move from squirts to the A Peewee team is already an exceptionally talented player, and is making the jump in spite of his not having the same checking skills of a second year Peewee. That won't apply to a second year player that is on the B or C team if there is no checking at the B or C level, so a player with less other skills will never have the chance to make up for it by having exceptional checking skills, because in year two he will be going up against other kids, with roughly the same talent level, but that have already had a year of checking.