High School Hockey without checking?

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:01 am

Some business associates and myself were discussing the Woodbury injury this morning and the subject of eliminating all checking came up. What do you folks think about that? Someone here made a good point that HS hockey would be a great sport without the checking, it would showcase the pure skaters and passers and shooters much more and the goalies would be much better prepared for the next level because the shots would be much higher as would the scoring.

If a kid has the skills to advance to the next level, then the checking starts (college and pros) and physically a 19 year old kid is much better suited to the hits than a 14-17 year old.

Maybe it's time.

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:09 am

They have that already, try xlhockey.com or whatever that is.

For the record this is a stupid idea.

nofinish · Post by **nofinish** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:17 am

MN District 6 youth hockey is already working towards no checking. If a player makes a check (legal ones) chances are the dist 6 refs will give him a penalty.

If coaches properly teach how to give and take a check injuries would be minimized.

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:17 am

youngblood08 wrote:They have that already, try xlhockey.com or whatever that is.

For the record this is a stupid idea.

It's just an idea, something to discuss is all. Myself I don't enjoy the checking end of the game. The skating and shooting are the real skills imo.

I can teach a kid to check and hit in a couple of weeks, teaching him to skate properly takes his entire childhood.

How many kids have to end hurt before something is done? It is getting worse, the spinal cord injuries, the concussions. The kids are skating much faster now than they were even 10 years ago.

You can make smarmy comments all you want, but this is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with.

PowerForward25 · Post by **PowerForward25** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:19 am

As scary as that hit was, I cannot imagine high school hockey with out checking. Heck even check out some girls games. Even though it isn't full check it gets more and more physical every year. Part of what makes hockey so fun to watch is how amazingly tough the players are. Most of the time after a big hit the player hops back up and looks to make a play. Ref's, as much as we dislike them sometimes, have been getting better about checking from behind and boarding. Every once in awhile there are going to be very violent hits that severely injure a kid. Obviously the kid doesn't skate on to the ice before a game thinking "Hmmm i wonder if this is the game I am going to get carried off in a stretcher" but players and i'm sure you parents know that there is always that possibility. Even with that possibility, passion keeps the kids coming back for more. It is hard to see that with other sports. People say hockey players are the toughest athletes. I think they are also the most passionate. Just my two cents.

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:29 am

nofinish wrote:MN District 6 youth hockey is already working towards no checking. If a player makes a check (legal ones) chances are the dist 6 refs will give him a penalty.

If coaches properly teach how to give and take a check injuries would be minimized.

There are coaches who are instructing and encouraging the "big hits" believe you me. Simple solution, ban all checking and allow a little pushing and elbowing but no impacts. I have a cousin in a wheelchair because of a hit from behind in a hockey game.

We all need to think about this one, it could be your kid.

countrygentleman · Post by **countrygentleman** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:30 am

Let's make football two hand touch too.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:30 am

Bad idea. The problem isn't checking, per se. The problem is that kids are taught to properly check.

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:37 am

D6 already has that rule

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:37 am

countrygentleman wrote:Let's make football two hand touch too.

Football should be fine, unless you want to add some hard 3' high boards around the field and allow them to smash each other into them. Then you may have a problem.

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:48 am

The players could never make the transition to higher levels of hockey.

power92 · Post by **power92** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:49 am

Is this the girl's hockey thread? Cmon people, its part of the game, as are injuries. If the athletes are trained and coached properly the injuries will be less.
There is no checking in Women's hockey, and they STILL have career ending injuries. I'm all for safety, but if you are that concerned, maybe a contact sport just isn't right for your kid.

PHS26 · Post by **PHS26** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:50 am

i agree with kids not knowing how to hit. Most of the players looking for the big hit have their hands and elbows up high, Not hitting with their shoulder. The whole point of hitting is to gain control of the puck.

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:53 am

I will bet you there are more kids permantly injured from Football Hits then Hockey hits. Watch the ESPN segment about all the boys paralized down in Texas from HITTING THE WRONG WAY. On of the boys started a organization called Gridiron Heros. They have had only 1 season where a kid was not injured.

I understand your stance on this as you are personnaly connectted with your cousins unfortunate injury. I understand but just because a member of my family was murdered with a gun doesn't mean I dont want guns around. I dont want the ones around that dont know how to use them.

This is a very sad deal for Christian Turner.

and my comment wasn't meant to be "Swarmy" I was being direct. Don't want to get hit or the chance of getting injured...........don't play. The xl league is designed for kids to continue playing without the physical side of it, hockey is a physical sport and the odds of you getting to the next level skill or not will involve getting hit at some point in time.

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:32 pm

Maybe this is a stupid idea, I'll give you that YB. I'll be the first to admit I am an emotional guy so maybe I'm overreacting to the Turner injury.

I know this, I've been watching kids play hockey for a lot of years and IMO the hits are getting harder and more vicious.

Kids are lifting weights, getting stronger, faster, more aggressive but they still have a fragile bone structure underneath it all, much more fragile than a 21 year old for example. Many kids are still growing throughout HS and into college.

Maybe they should PRACTICE hitting in practice in a controlled manor but not check during games where emotions are high. The next level? Maybe the next level will just have to help these kids along if they feel they have the skills. Things change, I think we have to keep an open mind.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:51 pm

"The whole point of hitting is to gain control of the puck"

Correct me if I'm wrong as we all know I didn't play hockey, but I have spoken to many people who have coached and played at many levels of hockey, from Mites and Bantam to high school and college; you are supposed to be checking the guy WITH the puck. Again, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that is how it is written from everything I've been told.

Which is a totally fine rule. As WB6162 has been saying, skating is a huge part of the game. If you can't skate away from someone in the middle of the ice and get checked and lose the puck, you deserved that. But if you pass the puck to a teammate then 3 seconds later get nailed in the boards, that's ridiculous. Yes, there's continuation, I get that, but when you are going after the player, not the puck, you aren't playing hockey anymore, you are checking for the sake of checking.

Most defenders I have talked to say they would prefer to get a big hit on someone with the puck than to poke it away. That in itself says something that isn't right in my opinion.

On top of all of the safety parts of checking, if you are checking someone who doesn't have the puck, you are not involved in the play. The point of being on the ice is to be involved in the play, not not involved. Seems pretty simple to me.

So I don't think getting rid of checking is the answer. I have sympathy for anyone who gets hurt playing any sport, but the possibility of injury is there in everything we do in life, especially in a sport. Just like tackling isn't the issue in football, but when/how we tackle, the same is true for hockey.

Just my two cents. I don't think eliminating checking is the solution, although I do disagree that it wouldn't be a game if we did. But we'd have to do it at all levels. Players would not be ready for the next level.

Check out Bandy; non-contact and bigger than hockey in many parts of the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandy

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:08 pm

I apologize for not reading youngblood's post before writing my essay, but this will be shorter.

Two main comments:

1. Of course there are more football injuries than hockey injuries. Have you ever been to Texas? The men (and many women) live and die football like people many do hockey in Minnesota. The same is true is other big states like Florida, California and Ohio. Hockey is huge is Minnesota, and maybe some other states are a fraction of Minnesota. People everywhere in Minnesota don't live and die hockey. Many do, but many don't. They do football elsewhere.

Comparing football to hockey nation wide with numbers is silly.

2. You are right. The answer isn't getting rid of checking, it's doing it right, just like you said about tackling. But there isn't a right way to check from behind or check a guy without the puck, things that aren't called often. The game, as the rules are written, is a great game. And a relatively safe game.
Talk to any college hockey player; they don't even notice being checked into the boards anymore. When you know a hit is coming, it's easy to take. The game needs to simply be called as written and coaches need to have their players play that way.

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:33 pm

HShockeywatcher wrote:I apologize for not reading youngblood's post before writing my essay, but this will be shorter.

Two main comments:

1. Of course there are more football injuries than hockey injuries. Have you ever been to Texas? The men (and many women) live and die football like people many do hockey in Minnesota. The same is true is other big states like Florida, California and Ohio. Hockey is huge is Minnesota, and maybe some other states are a fraction of Minnesota. People everywhere in Minnesota don't live and die hockey. Many do, but many don't. They do football elsewhere.

Comparing football to hockey nation wide with numbers is silly.

2. You are right. The answer isn't getting rid of checking, it's doing it right, just like you said about tackling. But there isn't a right way to check from behind or check a guy without the puck, things that aren't called often. The game, as the rules are written, is a great game. And a relatively safe game.
Talk to any college hockey player; they don't even notice being checked into the boards anymore. When you know a hit is coming, it's easy to take. The game needs to simply be called as written and coaches need to have their players play that way.

I just used football in texas as compared to hockey in minnesota. Percentage-wise not number for number.

If the kid turns at the last split second, how much can the other player really do? He takes the check from behind or the boarding call. No training in the world is going to prevent anything bad from ever happening in that situation.

pioneers · Post by **pioneers** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:44 pm

I think that checking is a part of the game that should remain. Possibly they should increase the penalties for illegal checks. The illegal checks seem to be the ones that cause the most serious injuries. Perhaps game suspensions for checks from behind on top of the current 2 and 10.

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:48 pm

they can add the 5 minute major and game misconduct for intent to injure.

mghockey18 · Post by **mghockey18** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:03 pm

It's part of the game. If you can't handle it, then go play a different sport. Grow a pair

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:07 pm

I agree that hitting is part of the game and don't think it should be eliminated, but the kids have to get over the mentality of hit first - play hockey second.

I was at a game last week, and whenever the home team put a hit on someone, the student section would start cheering or whatever. The problem is, the hits didn't do anything for the team. One time, a kid had a chance to play the puck and instead chose to go for the hit. He missed, the other guy got to the puck and the play resulted in a goal. Another time one kid put a real hard hit on the guy, and the crowd was so happy, but the kid got called for a penalty on the play and 30 seconds later the other team scored.

bender09 · Post by **bender09** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:49 pm

i am gonna throw my two cents in here and say that the number of serious injuries wouldn't change that drastically if checking was illegal.

There would still be just as many hits from behind. I have never saw someone plan a check from behind, no one wants it obviously and i am sure its just as bad for the kid who throws the check. knowing how drastically that one accident could change someones life. The checking from behind problem is impossible to solve because 99 percent of the time it is an accidental bump that knocks the other kid face first into the boards.

that's my opinion on the topic and know its the worst part about hockey, but the stop signs are a better idea than completely eliminating checking.

WB6162 · Post by **WB6162** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:51 pm

hockeydad wrote:I agree that hitting is part of the game and don't think it should be eliminated, but the kids have to get over the mentality of hit first - play hockey second.

I was at a game last week, and whenever the home team put a hit on someone, the student section would start cheering or whatever. The problem is, the hits didn't do anything for the team. One time, a kid had a chance to play the puck and instead chose to go for the hit. He missed, the other guy got to the puck and the play resulted in a goal. Another time one kid put a real hard hit on the guy, and the crowd was so happy, but the kid got called for a penalty on the play and 30 seconds later the other team scored.

I've seen this 100 times myself. RARELY does a hit do anything for a team. In my experience, the more hitting a team does the less skill they have. The NHL is dying out and I wonder why--maybe it's because starting at Peewees parents like mghockey (moronic goons?) are teaching their kids to be goons first and hockey players second.

Why is the NHL so boring? Because it's so tight and there is so much clutch and grab and hitting going on that the game has become a preverted shadow of what it once was. Watch some old youtube video of teh Monteal Canadians in the 60's and 70's. No helmets and very few big hits, mostly skating passing and spectacular plays.

jackstraw · Post by **jackstraw** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:12 pm

The NHL is dying out? Since I first became aware of hockey at a young age, hockey has become a truly international sport. How many hockey games are played every night? How many instances of contact in all those games? How many serious injuries? I have watched 100's of games (1000's?) and have only seen a few serious injuries. I think you are over reacting just a tad.