Hockey Canada Bans Checking for Pee-Wees

[barry_mcconnell]

I didn't even know they were considering this.

http://www.youth1.com/index.php/hockey- ... -wee-level

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... ockey.html

[InigoMontoya]

This year's first-year bantams will have had no previous MN hockey checking experience. It'll be interesting to see the number and severity of injuries in bantam hockey this year - not at the AA, A, or B1 level in the metro where many (or most) of those kids have learned to check and receive a check over the summers, but at B2 or C level and in some out-state pockets where few of those kids play except association hockey.

[57special]

No body checking in Timmins, Medicine Hat, and Kamloops?

Has Hell frozen over?

[O-townClown]

No body checking in Timmins, Medicine Hat, and Kamloops?

Has Hell frozen over?

I sent the news story to my friends from Western Canada (AB, SK) with comments similar to yours! I am not at all surprised Saskatchewan was a dissenting vote.

[sagard]

This year's first-year bantams will have had no previous MN hockey checking experience. It'll be interesting to see the number and severity of injuries in bantam hockey this year - not at the AA, A, or B1 level in the metro where many (or most) of those kids have learned to check and receive a check over the summers, but at B2 or C level and in some out-state pockets where few of those kids play except association hockey.

We aren't going to see additional injuries at lower level bantams. The 5-10 rules will keep the kids in line assuming it will continue to be enforced. Additionally these kids are a bit more gentle than the higher levels.

[InigoMontoya]

So the answer wasn't to take checking out of peewees, but to enact and enforce 5-10 rules to keep the kids in line?

[barry_mcconnell]

The 5-10 rule is good whether or not checking is allowed. By mixing in multiple rule changes we'll never truly know the impact of one single change.

It seems obvious that removing checking from Peewees will lower the number of injuries at that level. Unfortunately, I think we are pushing more serious injuries into Bantams.

There are very few 150lb+ kids at the Peewee level. At the Bantam level there are so many big and fast kids. The physics aren't forgiving to a 110lb kid who doesn't know how to avoid or take a check. I guess we can keep hoping that someone will invent a new helmet that prevents all concussions.

[preferhockey]

Going wrong direction, should start checking in squirts when the kids are not big, lower center of gravity and cannot skate as fast. Yeah, 180 degrees in opposite direction, but saw number of first year bantams this season that were intimidated by checking yes scared.

[Shinbone_News]

Once again, you guys aren;t actually reading the articles posted by the OP. If you had, you'd be discussing the actual scientific studies conducted in Canada which show no increase in injuries at Bantam when comparing provinces that have banned checking at Peewees compared to provinces that have not.

On the one hand, this:

But research out of Alberta last year showed there was a three-fold increase in the risk of injuries for peewee players who check in Alberta, compared to those in Quebec where bodychecking is not allowed until bantam.

On the other hand, this:

A new study published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by University of Calgary, Faculty of Kinesiology researcher, Dr. Carolyn Emery and colleagues has shown that when bodychecking is introduced into Bantam ice hockey there is no difference between overall injury rates or concussion, regardless of whether players have prior bodychecking experience in Pee Wee.

Emery, co-chair of the Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre at the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Centre, began by comparing injury and concussion rates in Alberta where bodychecking is allowed, to those in Quebec where bodychecking is not introduced until Bantam (13-14 year olds). She found a three-fold increased risk of injury in Alberta, and a four-fold increased risk of concussion.

“When we did that study, we repeatedly heard from advocates for bodychecking in Pee Wee that the injury rate in Bantam would be much higher for players without Pee Wee bodychecking experience,” said Emery, who is cross appointed with the Faculty of Medicine. “What we found is that the overall injury and concussion risk did not differ between Bantam leagues.”

The Bantam study compared injury rates between 68 Alberta teams (995 players) with 62 Quebec teams (976 players.) As in the previous study, this study used valid injury surveillance and injury assessment by team physiotherapists and athletic therapists, along with follow-up by sport medicine physicians. There were 272 injuries (51 concussions) in Alberta, compared to 244 injuries (49 concussions) reported in Quebec.

I realize these are just stupid scientists butting in where they're not wanted.

Science, facts. Bah humbug.

[helightsthelamp]

Going wrong direction, should start checking in squirts when the kids are not big, lower center of gravity and cannot skate as fast. Yeah, 180 degrees in opposite direction, but saw number of first year bantams this season that were intimidated by checking yes scared.

I couldn't agree more. The one aspect that is forgotten is kids will still check even though it is a two minute penalty. With checking not permitted, players do not anticipate being checked. Witnessed at the rink this past weekend at 03 (squirt) level. A team from unnamed city in Canada determines they can't skate with team they are playing so they might as well play physical and try and slow them down. Center ice blind side elbow to the head of a totally unsuspecting and unprepared player. Result, checker goes in the penalty box for a 2 minute checking penalty, recipient does not finish the game, goes home with a concussion and an unknown time frame of when he will be able to skate again... This will NEVER be reflected in a scientific stat.... If checking is permitted, anticipated and tought at at younger level, a player is prepared and maybe anticipate's getting checked. The other aspect that the scientific data does not show is how many injuries are caused by clean checks? I have seen very few. IMO More injuries are caused by rules not being followed.... IMO, more injuries will be caused by players breaking the checking rule, then by allowing (and teaching) proper body checking at the youngest levels. Hey, but of course the scientists and their data are much smarter then I am..... this past weekend was the second time I have witnessed similar scenario this spring, although other scenario resulted in a 5 Minute boarding penalty, but was clearly an intended check... recieving player did not play the reminder of the weekend...

[InigoMontoya]

I guess they know these things in a socialist medical system. I don't see how this could be studied in the US. As far as I know, there is no reporting process for injury in youth hockey.

[SCBlueLiner]

USA Hockey has a reporting process for every injury suffered in a game or at practice. They actually have a form to fill out and send in. I can't find it on USAH site but I have seen it.

[SECoach]

I guess they know these things in a socialist medical system. I don't see how this could be studied in the US. As far as I know, there is no reporting process for injury in youth hockey.

Minnesota Hockey does exhaustive reporting on penalties and injuries in partnership with the Mayo Clinic. Researchers at Mayo tabulate and study the information, and provide feedback to MN Hockey.

This of course is relates directly to injuries and safety. Recommendations regarding checking at the pee wee level were born primarily from the development committee and tagged onto by the safety committee. It seems the arguments on this board revolve around injuries and rarely address the player development issues.

[helightsthelamp]

I guess they know these things in a socialist medical system. I don't see how this could be studied in the US. As far as I know, there is no reporting process for injury in youth hockey.

Minnesota Hockey does exhaustive reporting on penalties and injuries in partnership with the Mayo Clinic. Researchers at Mayo tabulate and study the information, and provide feedback to MN Hockey.

This of course is relates directly to injuries and safety. Recommendations regarding checking at the pee wee level were born primarily from the development committee and tagged onto by the safety committee. It seems the arguments on this board revolve around injuries and rarely address the player development issues.

How many 1st year bantam's know how to properly execte a hip check... 2nd year bantams? Checking is a skill in hockey, it requires development just like any other skill

[silentbutdeadly3139]

This year's first-year bantams will have had no previous MN hockey checking experience. It'll be interesting to see the number and severity of injuries in bantam hockey this year - not at the AA, A, or B1 level in the metro where many (or most) of those kids have learned to check and receive a check over the summers, but at B2 or C level and in some out-state pockets where few of those kids play except association hockey.

We aren't going to see additional injuries at lower level bantams. The 5-10 rules will keep the kids in line assuming it will continue to be enforced. Additionally these kids are a bit more gentle than the higher levels.

I don't necessarily agree. 5-10 call is not consistently called and I think part of it is refs don't want the headache of calling that severe of a penalty so I don't think this is effective deterent.

Second, lower level kids are not necessarily "more gentle". some out state and bigger association kids are very proficient at lever levels because they don't field the upper levels or as in the case of the mega associations, they are deeper. Not always but many times these kids are out there to hit someone because it is the first time they can do it. I have seen many "lower" level games that were very physical

[hipcheck62]

[/quote]

Second, lower level kids are not necessarily "more gentle". some out state and bigger association kids are very proficient at lever levels because they don't field the upper levels or as in the case of the mega associations, they are deeper. Not always but many times these kids are out there to hit someone because it is the first time they can do it. I have seen many "lower" level games that were very physical[/quote]

This is 100% true. As an official I think the worst games to ref are Bantam B. There are a much higher percentage of kids at that level that put a lot of effort into lighting someone up. And it usually is not legal since they are typically slower and have not been taught correctly. It only takes one or two of these kids on each team to get the tempers flaring. Even if you call it correctly and consistently some kids will feel the need for revenge. Not saying A kids do not do this, but it seems like they are more focused on playing most of the time.

The problem I have with starting checking at squirts is that it is already hard enough for a kid that age to concentrate on doing two things at once, like skating and stickhandling. Now you are asking them to also be aware of where everyone is on the ice? Very few kids would be able to handle this and the others would sacrifice either the skating or stickhandling for fear of getting blown up. This is the exact reason USAH made the change. Allow the kids to develop skills in a progression, not all at once.

Personally, I like the idea of a no checking option for kids as they get older. Mainly for kids that just like to play and have no interest in high school or beyond. Let them play like we do in men's league since that is all that their future is anyway.

[barry_mcconnell]

Once again, you guys aren;t actually reading the articles posted by the OP. If you had, you'd be discussing the actual scientific studies conducted in Canada which show no increase in injuries at Bantam when comparing provinces that have banned checking at Peewees compared to provinces that have not.

On the one hand, this:

But research out of Alberta last year showed there was a three-fold increase in the risk of injuries for peewee players who check in Alberta, compared to those in Quebec where bodychecking is not allowed until bantam.

On the other hand, this:

A new study published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by University of Calgary, Faculty of Kinesiology researcher, Dr. Carolyn Emery and colleagues has shown that when bodychecking is introduced into Bantam ice hockey there is no difference between overall injury rates or concussion, regardless of whether players have prior bodychecking experience in Pee Wee.

Emery, co-chair of the Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre at the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Centre, began by comparing injury and concussion rates in Alberta where bodychecking is allowed, to those in Quebec where bodychecking is not introduced until Bantam (13-14 year olds). She found a three-fold increased risk of injury in Alberta, and a four-fold increased risk of concussion.

“When we did that study, we repeatedly heard from advocates for bodychecking in Pee Wee that the injury rate in Bantam would be much higher for players without Pee Wee bodychecking experience,” said Emery, who is cross appointed with the Faculty of Medicine. “What we found is that the overall injury and concussion risk did not differ between Bantam leagues.”

The Bantam study compared injury rates between 68 Alberta teams (995 players) with 62 Quebec teams (976 players.) As in the previous study, this study used valid injury surveillance and injury assessment by team physiotherapists and athletic therapists, along with follow-up by sport medicine physicians. There were 272 injuries (51 concussions) in Alberta, compared to 244 injuries (49 concussions) reported in Quebec.

I realize these are just stupid scientists butting in where they're not wanted.

Science, facts. Bah humbug.

From the study:
"The researchers did note a higher rate of “severe” injuries (33 per cent) in Quebec Bantam hockey."

Well there is that...

[goldy313]

That study was pretty flawed and in Alberta there was no real definition of injury so it was deemed full of over reporting upon peer review. That study was used by USA Hockey and even the authors admitted the flaws in it.

Honestly I'd like to see an real good study done but it is nearly impossible as what is an injury to some isn't to another and making the standard a broken bone or some other like injury isn't realistic. Scientifically I'd think you'd have to follow large amounts of cohort groups and verify what each injury was and how it happened. At the youth level I can't see it happening, maybe at a higher level where there are fewer games, fewer teams, and a higher level of maturity, where each injury can be evaluated on tape for the mechanism of injury. The NHL has done that somewhat with high sticking and leaving your feet hits. Cripes I wish youth hockey would work with what the NHL has done in terms of safety on some issues.

There have a been a few studies proposed in football where the kid has an MRI or CT pre season and another post season to see if any damage can be seen by comparing the two, but even then the kid could have fallen, wiped out on his bike, or what have you and been injured while he made it through football injury free.

Checking isn't smoking and proving cause and effect either way is nearly impossible.