HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Website is now live. Get your association on board.

In case you missed the StarTribune article this morning, here it is:

http://www.startribune.com/local/137136018.html

and the Jack's Pledge PSA video:

http://www.jackspledge.com/page/show/44 ... edge-video

Already this morning, since launching, I have six associations, two Division 1 college teams, four Division 3 college teams, and a handful of high school hockey teams.

Please have your association leadership visit www.jackspledge.com and encourage them to join the Minneapolis Hockey Association in this grass roots effort to change the game.

Great response, I hope it continues. I wonder how many summer hockey teams will sign the pledge, or will the handcuffs come off some the players that needed handcuffing after winter hockey is over.

While I commend the noble intent behind the Pledge, I don't feel comfortable making this a voluntary measure as it pertains to doubling the time a player serves for penalties on teams that take the Pledge. In my opinion, EVERY team needs to play by the same rules. I have no problem with teams doing this internally if they feel the infraction is flagrant, Pledge or no Pledge. But I believe there needs to be a mechanism where discretion can come into play. Sometimes the ref makes a bad call, should the player (and team) be penalized even more so because of that portion of the Pledge? Again, just to repeat, I've read the Pledge and I think it's GREAT! Just not the doubling of penalties. There must be some other way.

If we want to increase the severity of the penalties around head contact, boarding, checking from behind, etc....then follow the route of the High Schools and change the rules for ALL teams.

muckandgrind wrote:While I commend the noble intent behind the Pledge, I don't feel comfortable making this a voluntary measure as it pertains to doubling the time a player serves for penalties on teams that take the Pledge. In my opinion, EVERY team needs to play by the same rules. I have no problem with teams doing this internally if they feel the infraction is flagrant, Pledge or no Pledge. But I believe there needs to be a mechanism where discretion can come into play. Sometimes the ref makes a bad call, should the player (and team) be penalized even more so because of that portion of the Pledge? Again, just to repeat, I've read the Pledge and I think it's GREAT! Just not the doubling of penalties. There must be some other way.

If we want to increase the severity of the penalties around head contact, boarding, checking from behind, etc....then follow the route of the High Schools and change the rules for ALL teams.

Muck, we require associations to read Rule 13, adopt it, or come up with their own plan for dealing with it in order to join Jack's Pledge. As we have stated, we are bringing an iron clad guarantee to parents of our opponents that our kids will play a clean game of hockey, or there will be consequences. Put together a plan that tells the Minnesota Hockey world that you will deal with bad play and repeat offenders and you can join the "Jabby Nation".

We had some very, very deep and serious discussion with our coaches regarding the mandatory doubling of penalties. We recognize that refs will make some bad calls, however, ask virtually any coach in the heat of the moment and they would say it was a bad call - the hands weren't that high, the guy turned his back, blah, blah, blah. We decided to make it a blanket policy and that there was no grey area. We want the refs to call tighter and as an association we will have their backs.

This also protects the coach from parents objecting that the Johnson kid's check from behind was much more flagrant than my boys check from behind tonight....and you benched my kid while letting Johnson skate. Or a parent coach not sitting his kid....cause his kid would never play like that.

Rule 13 is about totally changing Minnesota Hockey culture - from parents in the stands yelling "HIT HIM" to chastising referees for their calls, to coaches living with referee calls in the name of changing a culture that we - as a group - have created where kids only think "HIT, HIT, HIT".

Any coach will tell you that yelling doesn't work to modify behavior - taking away ice time does. Yes, a bad call will happen, but in the big picture we feel Rule 13 moves hockey in the right direction in the quickest time period.

I agree that USA Hockey or MN Hockey should go the path of the high school league....but, the political structures and how they make their decisions are totally different and to make swift and broad changes to the game is virtually impossible.

Instead, parents and coaches who desire a safer game and the game to be one of skill must make the changes from within (by a mass movement by associations) and hope that USA Hockey or MN Hockey follow this lead and can make adjustments in a 12-24 month timeframe. Rule 13 isn't perfect....but we felt it was the fastest way to change the game for the better.

Thanks for the reply SW Prez......

Instead of taking away ice time for players...why not suspend coaches if their team takes in innordinate number of "dangerous" penalties? For example, if a Bantam B team takes 2 checking from behind penalties over a three game stretch, the coach gets suspended for 1 game? This puts the onus on the coach to get control of his team and to teach his players to play a fair and physical game.

IMO, most of the problems don't lie with the players, it's the coaches who vary rarely spend ANY practice time teaching the fundamentals of checking and what is legal and what isn't. They also need to spend more time teaching the players how to protect themselves, such as taking a wide angle to the puck along the boards, and never turning your back into a check, etc.

Why are we focusing so much time on penalizing the kids when the coaches have more to blame?

It is a 3 legged stool. Before Jan 1, we did not have one single checking from behind penalty in any game (opponents or us). The bantam refs swallowed their whistles this year. We were amazed as coaches why nothing was being called. 4 or 5 times we had to tell kids that they should have gotten the checking from behind, but were lucky to only receive a cross check or boarding call. It was tough to get through to them without the penalty. The other leg was the parents. When we started to bench kids for stupid penalties, the parents revolted.

Now, the refs are probably too strict in their interpretation, but it is fine with us as long as they stay consistant and do not back off. It requires coaches, refs, and parents to keep this going. Without every leg supporting it, it will fail.

I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

danglesnipecele wrote:I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

muckandgrind wrote:

danglesnipecele wrote:I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Here is the interesting thing Muck - there is no requirement for an association to self-impose doubling of penalties to be a part of the Jack's Pledge community for safer hockey. "Rule 13" was adopted by Minneapolis and is posted on the website to show what one association has done to deal internally with making their players play safer.

Frankly, Osseo/Maple Grove (the association that went public that they would not join Jack's Pledge) can do whatever they and their membership want with regard to bringing internal awareness to safety on the ice. That's up to them. There is no "unfair competitive advantage" because they do not have to adopt Minneapolis' "Rule 13" in order to participate in the Jack's Pledge community.

Jack's Pledge is a community that wants safer hockey. Through teaching kids from a young age proper contact, to supporting officials calling the rule book the way it was written, to having kids and coaches take the pledge to make them more aware of their actions on the ice. Each program may have a different way of developing and implementing a safety program. As far as players or coaches taking the Pledge, I do not see what there is to protest or to go public with "we aren't going to do this".

http://www.jackspledge.com/page/show/44 ... yer-pledge

SWPrez wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

danglesnipecele wrote:I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Here is the interesting thing Muck - there is no requirement for an association to self-impose doubling of penalties to be a part of the Jack's Pledge community for safer hockey. "Rule 13" was adopted by Minneapolis and is posted on the website to show what one association has done to deal internally with making their players play safer.

Frankly, Osseo/Maple Grove (the association that went public that they would not join Jack's Pledge) can do whatever they and their membership want with regard to bringing internal awareness to safety on the ice. That's up to them. There is no "unfair competitive advantage" because they do not have to adopt Minneapolis' "Rule 13" in order to participate in the Jack's Pledge community.

Jack's Pledge is a community that wants safer hockey. Through teaching kids from a young age proper contact, to supporting officials calling the rule book the way it was written, to having kids and coaches take the pledge to make them more aware of their actions on the ice. Each program may have a different way of developing and implementing a safety program. As far as players or coaches taking the Pledge, I do not see what there is to protest or to go public with "we aren't going to do this".

http://www.jackspledge.com/page/show/44 ... yer-pledge

Thanks for the clarification SW Prez.....There is ALOT of people out there who are operating under the assumption that if you take Jack's Pledge, it's implied that you also are incorporating Rule 13 and the doubling of penalites. I guess I was one of those as well.

Could it be that OMG was just also thinking the same way? Because I can't think of any other reason to NOT support it, other than the penalty language.

muckandgrind wrote:
Thanks for the clarification SW Prez.....There is ALOT of people out there who are operating under the assumption that if you take Jack's Pledge, it's implied that you also are incorporating Rule 13 and the doubling of penalites. I guess I was one of those as well.

Could it be that OMG was just also thinking the same way? Because I can't think of any other reason to NOT support it, other than the penalty language.

Very possible that associations are assuming that as I have talked to a few and they jumped on board after our discussion.

In getting the website up quickly, some things were confusing and as it is a work in progress, we tried to add further clarity earlier this week that we want associations to review the Rule 13 and have discussion - this is the positive of the whole thing is that associations are having deep discussion on the issues of safety. They are under NO obligation to adopt Rule 13.

Here is the Rule 13 page from the website:
http://www.jackspledge.com/page/show/44 ... al-rule-13

And here is the first paragraph:
"Rule 13 is a policy developed by one hockey association in Minnesota to elevate the standard for teaching and administering a safer, smarter way of playing hockey. There is no obligation to adopt Rule 13 for your team or association. We share Rule 13 simply as an example of an additional measure implemented to re-enforce Jack's Way of playing hockey: by the rules, safe, smart and skillfully."

muckandgrind wrote:

danglesnipecele wrote:I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Why punish the plaeyrs? while i understand the coaches do teach them it is ultimately the players responsibility to know how and when to check. They are not absolved of all blame just because they are younger.

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

danglesnipecele wrote:I saw an associaiton president on TV last night. He seemed to be afraid of taking the pledge because he is worried about an "unfair competitive advantage" if they pledge to play safe hockey and pledge to discipline players for cheap hits. Isn't that like a leader in the Boy Scouts stating "Don't take the Oath because we might loose a wilderness competition if we're morally straight?" Does he need the Grandpooba of the Boy Scouts to tell him to be morally straight in order to be morally straight? Isn't that the culture you're trying to change?

No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Why punish the plaeyrs? while i understand the coaches do teach them it is ultimately the players responsibility to know how and when to check. They are not absolved of all blame just because they are younger.

They shouldn't totally absolved, but my point is that the fault lies MAINLY with the coaches, as these coaches rarely spend any practice time teaching the proper methods of both giving a check and absorbing a check. With very little or no guidance, how can we lay the blame at the feet of a 12 year old? Just watching some of these kids try to lay a good body check only reinforces my opinion that most of them have never been taught properly.

muckandgrind wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Why punish the plaeyrs? while i understand the coaches do teach them it is ultimately the players responsibility to know how and when to check. They are not absolved of all blame just because they are younger.

They shouldn't totally absolved, but my point is that the fault lies MAINLY with the coaches, as these coaches rarely spend any practice time teaching the proper methods of both giving a check and absorbing a check. With very little or no guidance, how can we lay the blame at the feet of a 12 year old? Just watching some of these kids try to lay a good body check only reinforces my opinion that most of them have never been taught properly.

I was speaking mostly about the high school players, I agree their responsibility goes down the younger they are. 12 yr old? haven't you heard they can't check in peewee's but thats another thread.

muckandgrind wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: No, I totally understand where the association president is coming from. I have no problem with the pledge, I just don't like the self-imposed doubling of penalty minutes, especially if both teams aren't playing by the same rules.

I didn't see the interview, but my guess is that the President of that association probably feels the same way about cleaning up the game and re-enforcing the idea of safe play with the coaches and players....but many of us just think the doubling of penalties is taking it a bit too far....besides, why punish the players, when it's more of an issue with the coaches not teaching the proper way to be physical?

Why punish the plaeyrs? while i understand the coaches do teach them it is ultimately the players responsibility to know how and when to check. They are not absolved of all blame just because they are younger.

They shouldn't totally absolved, but my point is that the fault lies MAINLY with the coaches, as these coaches rarely spend any practice time teaching the proper methods of both giving a check and absorbing a check. With very little or no guidance, how can we lay the blame at the feet of a 12 year old? Just watching some of these kids try to lay a good body check only reinforces my opinion that most of them have never been taught properly.

I take great offense to the statement that the fault "MAINLY" lies with the coaches....I have yet to hear even the most boisterous of coaches in youth hockey tell their kids to go out and run someone from beind or hit another player in the head or to simply go out & try to hurt another player. Coaches don't coach to see kids get hurt! Coaches coach kids because they enjoy kids. It is absolutely proposterous that someone would have the audacity to put the blame on coaches.

I'm going to say this & I'm sure I will be made out to be the biggest monster in the history of youth hockey, but I'm going to say it anyway. First, what happened to Jack Joblonski was tragic & sad and should never happen to anyone ever. My thoughts & prayers are with him & his family as they begin this tremendous battle ahead of them. With that being said, there needs to be a balance as to how extreme the changes in hockey are going to be. The fact is as in any contact sport there is going to be a chance of serious injury. I agree, dangerous hits should penalized, and personally I believe that the current rules are pretty good at penalizing players for infractions. Would the family of a seriously injured player feel better about it if the offending player was banned from hockey for the year, for life? What penalty length is going to change the fact that a serious injury occured? I have been around thousands of hockey payers over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one that takes the ice with purpose of seriously injuring someone else like that. I don't mean to sound insensitive but these types major decisions need to be made when people have had a chance to let the emotions of the situation calm down. No matter how much you want to legislate each of these individual instances there is no possible way to eliminate the potential for serious injury in a sport like hockey. I'll be honest, it has been hard to watch hockey games since this sad incident. The games have become so overwhelmed with penalty calls it must be incredibly difficult for young players to even know what to do or how to play right now.
I hope good things are on the horizons for young Mr. Jablonski, I really do. My heart, thoughts & prayers will continue to go out to him & his family. I also hope that the hockey community can let the emotions of this sad & tragic event calm down before any major decisions about the game are made.

Well said wannago

wannagototherink wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote: Why punish the plaeyrs? while i understand the coaches do teach them it is ultimately the players responsibility to know how and when to check. They are not absolved of all blame just because they are younger.

They shouldn't totally absolved, but my point is that the fault lies MAINLY with the coaches, as these coaches rarely spend any practice time teaching the proper methods of both giving a check and absorbing a check. With very little or no guidance, how can we lay the blame at the feet of a 12 year old? Just watching some of these kids try to lay a good body check only reinforces my opinion that most of them have never been taught properly.

I take great offense to the statement that the fault "MAINLY" lies with the coaches....I have yet to hear even the most boisterous of coaches in youth hockey tell their kids to go out and run someone from beind or hit another player in the head or to simply go out & try to hurt another player. Coaches don't coach to see kids get hurt! Coaches coach kids because they enjoy kids. It is absolutely proposterous that someone would have the audacity to put the blame on coaches.

I'm going to say this & I'm sure I will be made out to be the biggest monster in the history of youth hockey, but I'm going to say it anyway. First, what happened to Jack Joblonski was tragic & sad and should never happen to anyone ever. My thoughts & prayers are with him & his family as they begin this tremendous battle ahead of them. With that being said, there needs to be a balance as to how extreme the changes in hockey are going to be. The fact is as in any contact sport there is going to be a chance of serious injury. I agree, dangerous hits should penalized, and personally I believe that the current rules are pretty good at penalizing players for infractions. Would the family of a seriously injured player feel better about it if the offending player was banned from hockey for the year, for life? What penalty length is going to change the fact that a serious injury occured? I have been around thousands of hockey payers over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one that takes the ice with purpose of seriously injuring someone else like that. I don't mean to sound insensitive but these types major decisions need to be made when people have had a chance to let the emotions of the situation calm down. No matter how much you want to legislate each of these individual instances there is no possible way to eliminate the potential for serious injury in a sport like hockey. I'll be honest, it has been hard to watch hockey games since this sad incident. The games have become so overwhelmed with penalty calls it must be incredibly difficult for young players to even know what to do or how to play right now.
I hope good things are on the horizons for young Mr. Jablonski, I really do. My heart, thoughts & prayers will continue to go out to him & his family. I also hope that the hockey community can let the emotions of this sad & tragic event calm down before any major decisions about the game are made.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant....I don't believe the coaches are encouragng their young players do go out an hurt other players....what I'm saying is that youth coaches don't spend NEARLY enough practice time teaching the youngsters how to properly check and how to receive a check. I think if coaches spent a little more time on those sharpening those skills, you would see fewer injuries as a result.

Thought I would provide an update on Jack's Pledge.

To date, 17,000 players from around the world have taken the pledge and are wearing "Jack Jablonski - #13 - In our Hearts" stickers on their helmets.

Pretty amazing how Jack has gotten kids, parents, referees, and associations focused on playing safer and smarter hockey. Every day, more sign up to take the pledge.

As I have said, Minneapolis Hockey has committed to playing a safer way of hockey - from squirts right through Bantams. The following programs have also committed:

http://www.jackspledge.com/page/show/44 ... the-pledge

From Sweden to Canada to all over the USA. Thank you to Jack Jablonski for raising safety awareness for all parties involved with hockey!

muckandgrind wrote:Thanks for the reply SW Prez......

Instead of taking away ice time for players...why not suspend coaches if their team takes in innordinate number of "dangerous" penalties? For example, if a Bantam B team takes 2 checking from behind penalties over a three game stretch, the coach gets suspended for 1 game? This puts the onus on the coach to get control of his team and to teach his players to play a fair and physical game.

IMO, most of the problems don't lie with the players, it's the coaches who vary rarely spend ANY practice time teaching the fundamentals of checking and what is legal and what isn't. They also need to spend more time teaching the players how to protect themselves, such as taking a wide angle to the puck along the boards, and never turning your back into a check, etc.

Why are we focusing so much time on penalizing the kids when the coaches have more to blame?

So you are against teaching kids personal responsibility?

How is a coach responsible for a hormone charged teen and his/her day to day level of aggression?

muckandgrind wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: They shouldn't totally absolved, but my point is that the fault lies MAINLY with the coaches, as these coaches rarely spend any practice time teaching the proper methods of both giving a check and absorbing a check. With very little or no guidance, how can we lay the blame at the feet of a 12 year old? Just watching some of these kids try to lay a good body check only reinforces my opinion that most of them have never been taught properly.

I take great offense to the statement that the fault "MAINLY" lies with the coaches....I have yet to hear even the most boisterous of coaches in youth hockey tell their kids to go out and run someone from beind or hit another player in the head or to simply go out & try to hurt another player. Coaches don't coach to see kids get hurt! Coaches coach kids because they enjoy kids. It is absolutely proposterous that someone would have the audacity to put the blame on coaches.

I'm going to say this & I'm sure I will be made out to be the biggest monster in the history of youth hockey, but I'm going to say it anyway. First, what happened to Jack Joblonski was tragic & sad and should never happen to anyone ever. My thoughts & prayers are with him & his family as they begin this tremendous battle ahead of them. With that being said, there needs to be a balance as to how extreme the changes in hockey are going to be. The fact is as in any contact sport there is going to be a chance of serious injury. I agree, dangerous hits should penalized, and personally I believe that the current rules are pretty good at penalizing players for infractions. Would the family of a seriously injured player feel better about it if the offending player was banned from hockey for the year, for life? What penalty length is going to change the fact that a serious injury occured? I have been around thousands of hockey payers over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one that takes the ice with purpose of seriously injuring someone else like that. I don't mean to sound insensitive but these types major decisions need to be made when people have had a chance to let the emotions of the situation calm down. No matter how much you want to legislate each of these individual instances there is no possible way to eliminate the potential for serious injury in a sport like hockey. I'll be honest, it has been hard to watch hockey games since this sad incident. The games have become so overwhelmed with penalty calls it must be incredibly difficult for young players to even know what to do or how to play right now.
I hope good things are on the horizons for young Mr. Jablonski, I really do. My heart, thoughts & prayers will continue to go out to him & his family. I also hope that the hockey community can let the emotions of this sad & tragic event calm down before any major decisions about the game are made.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant....I don't believe the coaches are encouragng their young players do go out an hurt other players....what I'm saying is that youth coaches don't spend NEARLY enough practice time teaching the youngsters how to properly check and how to receive a check. I think if coaches spent a little more time on those sharpening those skills, you would see fewer injuries as a result.

OK so WHEN do you teach proper checking. Squirts? several years until they can legally check. How much time do you propose a coach spend on something the kids are unable to do?

Peewees? Still a couple years until they can check. How much checking training do they need?

Finally, How does a kid learn to properly apply a productive body check in a game situation when they are not allowed to practice it in game situations?

....and furthermore, how do we expect kids to NOT check in a game situation if we are spending practice time to TEACH them to check and receive checks?

To teach checking properly, coaches need to also teach WHEN a body check is beneficial to the team and when it's not. It's much more then just giving and receiving.

Outoftowner wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

wannagototherink wrote: I take great offense to the statement that the fault "MAINLY" lies with the coaches....I have yet to hear even the most boisterous of coaches in youth hockey tell their kids to go out and run someone from beind or hit another player in the head or to simply go out & try to hurt another player. Coaches don't coach to see kids get hurt! Coaches coach kids because they enjoy kids. It is absolutely proposterous that someone would have the audacity to put the blame on coaches.

I'm going to say this & I'm sure I will be made out to be the biggest monster in the history of youth hockey, but I'm going to say it anyway. First, what happened to Jack Joblonski was tragic & sad and should never happen to anyone ever. My thoughts & prayers are with him & his family as they begin this tremendous battle ahead of them. With that being said, there needs to be a balance as to how extreme the changes in hockey are going to be. The fact is as in any contact sport there is going to be a chance of serious injury. I agree, dangerous hits should penalized, and personally I believe that the current rules are pretty good at penalizing players for infractions. Would the family of a seriously injured player feel better about it if the offending player was banned from hockey for the year, for life? What penalty length is going to change the fact that a serious injury occured? I have been around thousands of hockey payers over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one that takes the ice with purpose of seriously injuring someone else like that. I don't mean to sound insensitive but these types major decisions need to be made when people have had a chance to let the emotions of the situation calm down. No matter how much you want to legislate each of these individual instances there is no possible way to eliminate the potential for serious injury in a sport like hockey. I'll be honest, it has been hard to watch hockey games since this sad incident. The games have become so overwhelmed with penalty calls it must be incredibly difficult for young players to even know what to do or how to play right now.
I hope good things are on the horizons for young Mr. Jablonski, I really do. My heart, thoughts & prayers will continue to go out to him & his family. I also hope that the hockey community can let the emotions of this sad & tragic event calm down before any major decisions about the game are made.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant....I don't believe the coaches are encouragng their young players do go out an hurt other players....what I'm saying is that youth coaches don't spend NEARLY enough practice time teaching the youngsters how to properly check and how to receive a check. I think if coaches spent a little more time on those sharpening those skills, you would see fewer injuries as a result.

OK so WHEN do you teach proper checking. Squirts? several years until they can legally check. How much time do you propose a coach spend on something the kids are unable to do?

Peewees? Still a couple years until they can check. How much checking training do they need?

Finally, How does a kid learn to properly apply a productive body check in a game situation when they are not allowed to practice it in game situations?

....and furthermore, how do we expect kids to NOT check in a game situation if we are spending practice time to TEACH them to check and receive checks?

To teach checking properly, coaches need to also teach WHEN a body check is beneficial to the team and when it's not. It's much more then just giving and receiving.

To answer your question....YES!!! In fact, I think checking should be legal at the Squirt level, but that's an argument for a different thread.

Yes, absolutely start teaching it at Squirts...at least, start teaching them how to play the physical part of the game.

Obviously, you ramp it up when they get to Pee Wees. Hip checking has become a lost art, I'd like to see coaches teach the proper way to hip check as well as keeping the hands and elbow down. Teach them that the object of a check is to separate the player from the puck, not the head from the shoulder.

If you send these kids into Bantams without knowing how to give and receive a check, you are asking for an increase in injuries. I hope I'm wrong, but I think injuries will increase in the long run,.

Outoftowner wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:Thanks for the reply SW Prez......

Instead of taking away ice time for players...why not suspend coaches if their team takes in innordinate number of "dangerous" penalties? For example, if a Bantam B team takes 2 checking from behind penalties over a three game stretch, the coach gets suspended for 1 game? This puts the onus on the coach to get control of his team and to teach his players to play a fair and physical game.

IMO, most of the problems don't lie with the players, it's the coaches who vary rarely spend ANY practice time teaching the fundamentals of checking and what is legal and what isn't. They also need to spend more time teaching the players how to protect themselves, such as taking a wide angle to the puck along the boards, and never turning your back into a check, etc.

Why are we focusing so much time on penalizing the kids when the coaches have more to blame?

So you are against teaching kids personal responsibility?

How is a coach responsible for a hormone charged teen and his/her day to day level of aggression?

No I'm not....But I'm also not against holding coaches responsible for the actions of their players. If they have a kid who can't control their aggression, then the coach needs to take action....whether that be corrective action in practice, benching them, suspending them or kicking them off the team.

muckandgrind wrote:

Outoftowner wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: I think you misinterpreted what I meant....I don't believe the coaches are encouragng their young players do go out an hurt other players....what I'm saying is that youth coaches don't spend NEARLY enough practice time teaching the youngsters how to properly check and how to receive a check. I think if coaches spent a little more time on those sharpening those skills, you would see fewer injuries as a result.

OK so WHEN do you teach proper checking. Squirts? several years until they can legally check. How much time do you propose a coach spend on something the kids are unable to do?

Peewees? Still a couple years until they can check. How much checking training do they need?

Finally, How does a kid learn to properly apply a productive body check in a game situation when they are not allowed to practice it in game situations?

....and furthermore, how do we expect kids to NOT check in a game situation if we are spending practice time to TEACH them to check and receive checks?

To teach checking properly, coaches need to also teach WHEN a body check is beneficial to the team and when it's not. It's much more then just giving and receiving.

To answer your question....YES!!! In fact, I think checking should be legal at the Squirt level, but that's an argument for a different thread.

Yes, absolutely start teaching it at Squirts...at least, start teaching them how to play the physical part of the game.

Obviously, you ramp it up when they get to Pee Wees. Hip checking has become a lost art, I'd like to see coaches teach the proper way to hip check as well as keeping the hands and elbow down. Teach them that the object of a check is to separate the player from the puck, not the head from the shoulder.

If you send these kids into Bantams without knowing how to give and receive a check, you are asking for an increase in injuries. I hope I'm wrong, but I think injuries will increase in the long run,.

I agree. Checking in squirts gives players more experience and they can learn the game with checking instead of needing to adapt to it later... when they can do damage or get hurt.

I'm still not seeing how sensible it is to teach checking when it is several years away. That's why it seem most logical to allow it right away when they are small and less likely to do damage or get hurt.

muckandgrind wrote:

Outoftowner wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:Thanks for the reply SW Prez......

Instead of taking away ice time for players...why not suspend coaches if their team takes in innordinate number of "dangerous" penalties? For example, if a Bantam B team takes 2 checking from behind penalties over a three game stretch, the coach gets suspended for 1 game? This puts the onus on the coach to get control of his team and to teach his players to play a fair and physical game.

IMO, most of the problems don't lie with the players, it's the coaches who vary rarely spend ANY practice time teaching the fundamentals of checking and what is legal and what isn't. They also need to spend more time teaching the players how to protect themselves, such as taking a wide angle to the puck along the boards, and never turning your back into a check, etc.

Why are we focusing so much time on penalizing the kids when the coaches have more to blame?

So you are against teaching kids personal responsibility?

How is a coach responsible for a hormone charged teen and his/her day to day level of aggression?

No I'm not....But I'm also not against holding coaches responsible for the actions of their players. If they have a kid who can't control their aggression, then the coach needs to take action....whether that be corrective action in practice, benching them, suspending them or kicking them off the team.

Your association must give coaches more control. My association board and hockey ops committee will not back up a coach who benches, suspends or would dare kick a kid off the team. The parent will complain and the board will give in, because numbers are so low. So basically, due to the association fair play policy through bantams, the coach is to be the team buddy. Not the team authority. Maybe the association should be held responsible? HOC committee?

It seems most logical to me that the actions of the player are the players responsibility.