Checking in bantams

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply

Should USAH remove checking from bantams?

Yes
2
14%
No
7
50%
Leave at the bantam A level
4
29%
Some other answer
1
7%
 
Total votes: 14

elliott70
Posts: 12545
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:15 pm

USAH is studying the removal of checking in bantams.

What do you think?

Goose21
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:31 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Goose21 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:23 pm

I was skeptical when they removed checking from Peewees, but I have to admit I think it has improved some things at the bantam level. That said, I don't think it should be removed from the higher level of Bantams, but would support having a non-checking level.
Forecheck, Backcheck, Paycheck

blueline_6
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by blueline_6 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:29 pm

MN Hockey offers no-checking recreational leagues.

Before doing anything else with checking rules, I would like to see an independent study of the frequency of Checking from Behind, Head Contact and Misconduct penalities in Bantams prior to removing checking from peewees and after removing checking from peewees.

IMO, we now have Bantam kids that don't know properly give or receive a body check. Pushing that off until these kids are playing high school or junior hockey is not going to solve the problem.

Dog
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Dog » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:03 am

The difference is that at peewees you have kids at vastly different size and skill. At bantams this gets cleaned up a bit because skill and size (with skill) tend to go together (based on the strength of the program and the schedule they play). At peewees it is much more possible to have a a 5'10" kid or greater playing against a 5' kid or smaller and you can have a kid get absolutely crushed on the boards.
The most important difference is that you're talking about kids at as young as 11 at peewees who don't have the mental fortitude to stop themselves when they come up on a younger, smaller kid on the boards. Can that still happen at bantams when you get a big size difference? Certainly. But it's safer to wait until after peewees.
The other possible safer route would be to put checking back at squirts to get the kids used to the body aspect of the game.
But then you'd be introducing back head injuries that can become a huge problem later.
Why have checking at bantams then? Because eventually they have to learn. If they go into High School not knowing the "art" of checking, they'll be at the same disadvantage that they'd have at peewees with unaware 10th graders going to the boards against basically "men" 12th graders on the boards.
The current system, most likely, protects them as best we can, IMO.

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:33 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Redarmy19 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:13 pm

My son plays Bantam A and there is an average of 1 checking from behind/boarding (2 and 10) per game. The average is probably actually slightly over 1 per game. That said, I would not want checking taken out of Bantams. I'd rather see stiffer penalties for checking from behind/boarding/head shots.

elliott70
Posts: 12545
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:52 pm

Redarmy19 wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:13 pm
My son plays Bantam A and there is an average of 1 checking from behind/boarding (2 and 10) per game. The average is probably actually slightly over 1 per game. That said, I would not want checking taken out of Bantams. I'd rather see stiffer penalties for checking from behind/boarding/head shots.

Interesting.
In D16 I track penalties and, while I have not done the math, boarding and behind penalties occur about once in 5 or more games.
Last year (the first half) they were more frequent but I have received very few incident reports this year.

Goose21
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:31 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Goose21 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:29 pm

In my observation, the removal of checking at Bantams and stronger enforcement of more dangerous hits has created a Bantam game of more skill, puck movement, and positioning. I see more kids playing the puck, or puck and body, than just hitting. The emphasis is more on separating the puck from the player than just laying somebody out.
Forecheck, Backcheck, Paycheck

zooomx
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by zooomx » Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:27 am

My son graduated last year. Looking back, I saw a ton of dumb "checking decisions" at the bantam level. They are still too immature to process the risk they are taking. Let them separate the opponent from the puck without the blow up hit. High school players will be able to adjust just fine.

Tapinbirdie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:57 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Tapinbirdie » Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:49 pm

I have been a head coach at the A Bantam level and these are just my experiences and two cents on the matter...

I have a son that just left Bantams. He was of decent size for Bantams and was fairly rugged, but skated with his head down. He learned the hard way, especially against northern teams. I have another son that is a first year AA Bantam D-man. He is small, but battles. The bigger and stronger Bantams look for the smaller kids to hit. He is learning to escape contact and defend himself as the season progresses. He is taking far less hits now than in November. There will always be a size discrepancy (PW, Bantam, or HS). Go to a HS game for proof. The problem is learning/experiencing checking at an older age, when the kids are physically stronger and larger, when the hits are more impactful, is placing kids in harms way.

My experience is that almost every game in D2 has a 2 and 10 for checking. The kids complain about the call every time (and often the coaches). They don't understand why the call is made or what they did wrong. Last night, while minding the penalty box, it happened twice. Both kids whining about the call because it caused them to miss significant playing time. These kids should have known that they had made a poor decision regardless of the call. This is a huge issue. In my opinion, checking should not be taken away from Bantams. It should be taught in detail.

There should be an early-season or pre-season mandatory 2 hour training with coaches, players, and referees. We would all have reasonable expectations of referees calls and realize why they may/may not be made during the season. Show the players/coaches what we want to see-separation of body or hands from puck. Controlling your man in the corners with balance and hand position. Make it clear to everyone what a "dangerous" hit is. We want contact to the torso. Never hits to the head; which will always be 10 min call. That checks slightly away from the dasher will always get a 10 min boarding call. Hits from behind are always the hitters fault (even on a late turn by the puck carrier) and will garner a 10 min. These calls should be automatic regardless of intent. If everyone was aware of this...it may make the officials job easier. Coaches would be more supportive of the calls. Players would understand why the call was made (even with mitigating circumstances) and hopefully change behavior.
Healthy Scratch for Tonight's Game

Dog
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by Dog » Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:39 am

Tapinbirdie wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:49 pm
I have been a head coach at the A Bantam level and these are just my experiences and two cents on the matter...

I have a son that just left Bantams. He was of decent size for Bantams and was fairly rugged, but skated with his head down. He learned the hard way, especially against northern teams. I have another son that is a first year AA Bantam D-man. He is small, but battles. The bigger and stronger Bantams look for the smaller kids to hit. He is learning to escape contact and defend himself as the season progresses. He is taking far less hits now than in November. There will always be a size discrepancy (PW, Bantam, or HS). Go to a HS game for proof. The problem is learning/experiencing checking at an older age, when the kids are physically stronger and larger, when the hits are more impactful, is placing kids in harms way.

My experience is that almost every game in D2 has a 2 and 10 for checking. The kids complain about the call every time (and often the coaches). They don't understand why the call is made or what they did wrong. Last night, while minding the penalty box, it happened twice. Both kids whining about the call because it caused them to miss significant playing time. These kids should have known that they had made a poor decision regardless of the call. This is a huge issue. In my opinion, checking should not be taken away from Bantams. It should be taught in detail.

There should be an early-season or pre-season mandatory 2 hour training with coaches, players, and referees. We would all have reasonable expectations of referees calls and realize why they may/may not be made during the season. Show the players/coaches what we want to see-separation of body or hands from puck. Controlling your man in the corners with balance and hand position. Make it clear to everyone what a "dangerous" hit is. We want contact to the torso. Never hits to the head; which will always be 10 min call. That checks slightly away from the dasher will always get a 10 min boarding call. Hits from behind are always the hitters fault (even on a late turn by the puck carrier) and will garner a 10 min. These calls should be automatic regardless of intent. If everyone was aware of this...it may make the officials job easier. Coaches would be more supportive of the calls. Players would understand why the call was made (even with mitigating circumstances) and hopefully change behavior.
Very well stated. One thing I've heard (not sure if it's true) is that the coffers have risen significantly due to the coaches fees charged by USA hockey. It certainly would make sense that it's true when you count all the coaches out there and I really don't see them offering more than the clinics and on-line classes. What else do they offer for the $?
If that is the case that they have cash in the bank, then why can't USA or MN hockey put their money where their mouth is and offer checking clinics at a reduced fee that is mandatory to be in bantams and run by officials (USA/MN/ referees) before the bantam season starts to try to reduce unnecessary or reckless hits?

elliott70
Posts: 12545
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:42 pm

"Very well stated. One thing I've heard (not sure if it's true) is that the coffers have risen significantly due to the coaches fees charged by USA hockey. It certainly would make sense that it's true when you count all the coaches out there and I really don't see them offering more than the clinics and on-line classes. What else do they offer for the $?
If that is the case that they have cash in the bank, then why can't USA or MN hockey put their money where their mouth is and offer checking clinics at a reduced fee that is mandatory to be in bantams and run by officials (USA/MN/ referees) before the bantam season starts to try to reduce unnecessary or reckless hits?" per DOG

Both organizations have cash in the bank.
At the MH level some of us have been advocating return of funds/reductions in player fees.
MH has set up a couple of programs to send money back to the district level and provide an avenue for needy requests to be handled.
The suggestion from tapinbirdie has been sent to MH board members and some are eager to institute the program.

We sill see what transpires next week.

goldy313
Posts: 3033
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:56 pm

Re: Checking in bantams

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:43 am

I posted this same sentiment earlier......

The Mayo hockey group has an agenda.....right or wrong. But they offer no solutions. What happens when 9th graders who have never seen a check play against 12 graders who have been checking for 3-4 years? Is that safer?

Mayo makes a significant amount of revenue in sports medicine and in clearing athletes from concussions. A legitimate question is are they advocating safety or revenue?

If we legislate no one under 25 drives a car we significantly lower the number of traffic related deaths for those unde age 25. But at what cost. Statistics are only a reflection of data.

Post Reply