USAH Coaches Survey/Pee Wee Checking Rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Post Reply
edgeless2
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:08 pm

USAH Coaches Survey/Pee Wee Checking Rule

Post by edgeless2 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:29 pm

I'm sure plenty of you rubes have seen this. It's kind of a joke, when they start off asking seemingly legitimate questions. It ends with question 6, which asks us coaches would we:

A. Like to keep the new rule intact with no changes
B. Like to keep the new rule with changes

My problem with this is that I attempted to not answer the question and explain why in the next section. I explained that I think that checking should be allowed in pee wees and I wondered why there wasn't an option for that answer on question 6. It would not allow me to submit the survey without answering question 6. So either way I answer I was forced to say that I wanted to keep the new rule, with or without changes. I guess this will be twisted by USAH that an overwhelming majority in a recent survey voted to keep checking out of Pee Wee hockey. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?
Last edited by edgeless2 on Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:59 pm

What is Hobson's Choice?

DumpandChase1
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:37 pm

Post by DumpandChase1 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:12 pm

Would you expect anything less from USA Hockey? Total feel good survey for them. Ask for feedback from its members, then make their own decisions. I too love how they ask question 6, very typical.

jackstraw
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 12:58 pm

same

Post by jackstraw » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:01 pm

I thought the exact same thing and wrote such on the comment section of how this will be used as propaganda.

Deep Breath

Post by Deep Breath » Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:06 am

Had the same thought as the others here. My comment in the last section was: "You are missing an answer/option to the previous question: you should be allowing us to choose - 'getting rid of this ridiculous rule immediately'. And how about the spin in the email they sent on how they had the backing of over 88 percent of hockey administrators from around the country. Uh, as a youth hockey coach for the past 7 years, I am, like all other coaches, a hockey administrator. This past winter season I would estimate that I spoke with well over 100 coaches at the peewee and above level about this rule and the number of them that agreed with it could have been counted on one hand after a farm accident.

O-townClown
Posts: 4077
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:09 am

Deep Breath wrote: Uh, as a youth hockey coach for the past 7 years, I am, like all other coaches, a hockey administrator.
Pretty sure USA Hockey means hockey directors and association presidents. I can't imagine they view coaches as "hockey administrators".
Be kind. Rewind.

Deep Breath

Post by Deep Breath » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:36 am

Of course they don't view us coaches as administrators, and that's my point. USA Hockey doesn't value the opinion of the coaches, beause if they would have listened to the coaches, who are the ones who have to deal with this, the rule would have never been handed down. Would like to see how far USA Hockey would get if the volunteer coaches simply walked away.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:59 am

I agree, question 6 was an absolute joke and I made sure to make comment on it at the end. Informed them if they wanted REAL feedback they wouldn't include loaded questions like that one.

MnMade-4-Life
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:53 pm
Location: MnMade Rink 2

Post by MnMade-4-Life » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:22 am

JSR wrote:I agree, question 6 was an absolute joke and I made sure to make comment on it at the end. Informed them if they wanted REAL feedback they wouldn't include loaded questions like that one.
agreed ... I took the same stance.
/chugga chugga
/chugga chugga
WOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOO

McLuvin
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:27 am

Post by McLuvin » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:36 pm

I too found this question to be a manipulation to fit their desires and commented on it as such.

Having watched some spring hockey where these non-checking PeeWee players are now completing with larger, faster and physical players all the while skating with their head down because that is what they just played all winter with no consequence of getting hit. Such bad habits were created, it will take them awhile to retrain. Unfortunately these players are doing it with a 5'10" 175lb kid ready to take the body.

Maybe I am too old school for the new Touchy-Feely USA hockey.

jpiehl
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:09 am

Post by jpiehl » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:56 pm

McLuvin wrote:I too found this question to be a manipulation to fit their desires and commented on it as such.

Having watched some spring hockey where these non-checking PeeWee players are now completing with larger, faster and physical players all the while skating with their head down because that is what they just played all winter with no consequence of getting hit. Such bad habits were created, it will take them awhile to retrain. Unfortunately these players are doing it with a 5'10" 175lb kid ready to take the body.

Maybe I am too old school for the new Touchy-Feely USA hockey.
I guess I don't understand why there would be such a discrepency in the size of these players. Summer hockey goes by a single birth year, while winter covers a two year span, with three different birth years in that span. And especially this year, the 98's would have had checking as first year PeeWees, so a young 98 that was a PeeWee going against an older 98 that was a Bantam shouldn't have that significant of a difference. The 99's may have had a year of checking if they are the older half. But the younger 99's and younger years haven't had any yet. And the window for the levels is smaller in summer. I'm not advocating for the rule change, but the argument that these poor kids are now competing with bigger, faster, stronger players now that summer has rolled around versus what they played in association is flawed at best.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:13 am

jpiehl wrote:
McLuvin wrote:I too found this question to be a manipulation to fit their desires and commented on it as such.

Having watched some spring hockey where these non-checking PeeWee players are now completing with larger, faster and physical players all the while skating with their head down because that is what they just played all winter with no consequence of getting hit. Such bad habits were created, it will take them awhile to retrain. Unfortunately these players are doing it with a 5'10" 175lb kid ready to take the body.

Maybe I am too old school for the new Touchy-Feely USA hockey.
I guess I don't understand why there would be such a discrepency in the size of these players. Summer hockey goes by a single birth year, while winter covers a two year span, with three different birth years in that span. And especially this year, the 98's would have had checking as first year PeeWees, so a young 98 that was a PeeWee going against an older 98 that was a Bantam shouldn't have that significant of a difference. The 99's may have had a year of checking if they are the older half. But the younger 99's and younger years haven't had any yet. And the window for the levels is smaller in summer. I'm not advocating for the rule change, but the argument that these poor kids are now competing with bigger, faster, stronger players now that summer has rolled around versus what they played in association is flawed at best.
I see what you are saying but especially at the 99 and 98 age levels this is when puberty is kicking in full force for some and not at all for others yet. I just helped evaluate a '99 spring team, this was JUST 99's mind you, and there were three kids who were literally between 5'10" and 6'0" tall, and all three were easily over 150 lbs, chosen for the team and then there were 4 kids chosen who all were barely 5'0" tall and 100lbs. The smaller kids were quick and skilled and deserved to be on the team but it illustrates the vast size difference in just this one birth year on just one team. Certain Candadian teams will field a 99 level team with most all of their kids being the size of the bigger kids so that is where the problems COULD occur is what I think the poster before was getting at. Which in turn is just another reasn why this new rule is not good the way it's structured currently. Atleast the really good kids can make AAA teams that play in full check tourneys in the spring and summer which will help them acclimate to Bantams better but what about the other kids who are athletic enough and good enough to make a Bantam B1 team someday and quite probably their high school team someday, but maybe aren't playing spring or summer hockey or aren't playing with teams that go to checking tourneys, what about those kids, I fear for those kids, I really do.

Deep Breath

Post by Deep Breath » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:01 pm

Good points, but let's try not to deviate from the topic of the thread, which is USA Hockey's BLATANT attempt to skew the opinions of those who take the survey. It's flat out embarassing that the organization would include a multiple choice question about what is arguably the most volatile topic in Mn youth hockey over the last few years, without including the answer option for all viewpoints to be heard. I can just read the email now that will come in late August from USA Hockey, as they are peddling their latest version of "facts": It will no doubt read something like this: "We want to thank all of you who took the time to complete our survey from this spring regarding the checking issue at the Peewee level. We had overwhelming response and it seems clear that the majority of USA Hockey members agree with the rule that removed checking from this level, which only serves to help promote the game and improve the overall skills of the players." A complete and utter joke and I can only hope that the vast majority of the people who took the few minutes out of their day to fill out the survey, were as annoyed and disgusted with the last question as I was.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:27 pm

Deep Breath wrote:Good points, but let's try not to deviate from the topic of the thread, which is USA Hockey's BLATANT attempt to skew the opinions of those who take the survey. It's flat out embarassing that the organization would include a multiple choice question about what is arguably the most volatile topic in Mn youth hockey over the last few years, without including the answer option for all viewpoints to be heard. I can just read the email now that will come in late August from USA Hockey, as they are peddling their latest version of "facts": It will no doubt read something like this: "We want to thank all of you who took the time to complete our survey from this spring regarding the checking issue at the Peewee level. We had overwhelming response and it seems clear that the majority of USA Hockey members agree with the rule that removed checking from this level, which only serves to help promote the game and improve the overall skills of the players." A complete and utter joke and I can only hope that the vast majority of the people who took the few minutes out of their day to fill out the survey, were as annoyed and disgusted with the last question as I was.
Total agreement

oldschoolpuckster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:51 am

Post by oldschoolpuckster » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:12 pm

That's USSA hockey for you!!

Post Reply