DMom wrote:I sometimes am a little slow, first we want to include the summer birthdays with their grade and than you want them to play by birth year?
Reading your past posts, you are far from slow. Those are two different thoughts but within this thread, so easily confused.
There was a post earlier in this thread which posed the question:
If ya have to place a bet, which is more likely to happen:
1). No change to the current system
2). Jan 1st becomes the new date
3). June 1st becomes the new date
4). School grade is used
5). Something else ???
The discussion has bounced back and forth a bit from option to option. There is merit to each depending on your objective. The positive reasons for one option don't always translate to the next option, however.
If you simply go by year in school, now you are advocating that kid's who are held back are out there to bash the younger kids in the class. It only moves the problem.
If you strictly go by school grade AND keep the 24 month spread in playing years (2 grades by the school year) you are asking for big problems, as you just increased the playing year spread to 36 months ... possibly even more if kids are held back (failing) in school.
However, if you go by single grade it is an improvement over the current system as far as player safety, player retention and development is concerned. You would still get the big kids out their "bashing" the younger kids, but they'd be the exception where right now under the current system (with the 24 month spread) they are the rule.
With regards to the summer birthdays ... the current rule was made/(modified?) back in 202/03 ... quoting a great post by greybeard ...
... evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds.
That was back in 2002-03. Current trends with the economy have changed that number again ... with more and more families holding kids back to put off college expense for another year where possible among the leading reasons, but there are others.
The new evidence shows that boys in Minnesota from June-August are being held back in record numbers. Moreso in August, less so in June & July, but significantly so in this group of post-school summer birthdays (June/July/August). As one previous poster stated, statistics show "June is the new July".
Certainly the rule allows some kids with summer birthdays (July 1-Aug 31) a choice and restricting others (June). Not only is this rule does the current rule seems discriminatory, it is not in line with the statistical evidence in Minnesota schools.
It is currently on the table to get this rule up to speed and ammend the date to include all summer birthdays (June-August). This is a definite improvement and should be expedited.
However, that doesn't close the book on the age issue ... maybe for now it does ... but their is mounting evidence that shows a 12 month gap between players rather than 24 significantly reduces injuries and retains players.
That is a separate but related topic. Related in the sense that if you change to a 12 month spread as the standard legislated spread, the question becomes which is the better spread, June-May or Jan-Dec? June-May accommodates the Minnesota school system while Jan-Dec accommodates the rest of the hockey world. There are pros and cons to both.
The issue of body checking and when it is best introduced is a separate but related topic. Body-contact is not only the leading source of serious injury in hockey, but fear of body-contact is also amongst the leading reasons for kids quitting hockey (skilled and otherwise). In fact, there is a thread going on right now in this forum where someone is concerned that 80% of their PeeWee A team won't go into the corners. Another poster responds that "they are done A hockey" , which is unfortunately probably true. He goes on to offer some consolation that "sometimes they regain their confidence" at later ages, which is true only IF they are still playing.
This is a related issue when setting up age categories, as both fear-of-contact and serious injury by contact is most prevalent when the size and age difference is exaggerated, which is most often the case at peewee and bantam hockey.
It is not always possible to do this due to smaller numbers in smaller associations, but in many parts of the continent, where possible, age groups are restricted to 12 months instead of 24.
The only place I know where contact is restricted is in Quebec where they have the fewest per-capita injuries at the peewee level and the highest player retention rate through peewee hockey. I think they've also produced a skilled player or two through the years.
At current time, there is probably not the appetite in Minnesota for either the 12 month spread, the Jan-Dec calendar or any change to body-checking at the peewee level but all 3 are legitimate conversations which should be ongoing with a progressive hockey board.
Werever you come down on these issues, it is refreshing to see that they are being talked about.
For many the June 1 date change is just band-aid on a gaping head wound, but it is a sign that the doors remain open, even if just a crack.
Anyways, DMom, sorry for my rant. Easy to get confused when different conversations are tangled together, but there is definite relationships between the different issues.
If we were going to wait for the absolute perfect rule to satisfy all of the issues we would never get anything done - we would always be waiting.
The June 1 date will have minimal effect on safety and player retention, but it is a strong step in the right direction with regards to groupings (all summer b-days, not just 2/3) and it shows that the board is responsive to making changed based on research and evidence - not defensive about existing rules (status quo) or operating on opinion (personal experience/agenda).
That in itself is a welcome sign for those who are getting an appetite for change based on the facts.
, and moving to a birth year system would clearly help them out (and thanks--that's where my boys are!!) but a six year old kindergartener would still be playing a year ahead of his classmates. If you simply go by year in school, now you are advocating that kid's who are held back are out there to bash the younger kids in the class. It only moves the problem. 