NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS

[silentbutdeadly3139]

Those comparisons aren't worth much. No one is disputing if checking should be in hockey, just what age is appropriate. Those are college kids not 11-12 year old kids with large disparity in size. Times change, you send your kid out without a helmet and shield ?

It was food for fodder. Programs that have no contact have much greater injury rates then those meany boy sports.

How is that fair play point system working? I think if more areas adopted something like that the illegal hits and such would go way down. http://minnesotahockeyhep.com/hep-artic ... effective/

I think the issue here is USA Hockey is National and were a small footprint it the global scheme. I might add our players are bigger and probably faster by age group then the rest of the country too due to our uniqueness.

Not everything USA Hockey does is a good fit or needed as mandatory for every place that they oversee.

I have yet to see a hit this year at the Bantam level at the top level in almost 30 games that was even a concern to me.

Is there probably a need for addressing elsewhere. Yes. Here no.

This discussion is about Pee Wee's not Bantams. I have seen a bunch many having to do with size difference, big kid checks small kids but he hits the head because he's so much bigger, big kid blows up little kid cause his size difference makes it easy for him. Fair play points only work if refs enforce current rules consistently ... there lies the problem IMO

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

. . .

I have yet to see a hit this year at the Bantam level at the top level in almost 30 games that was even a concern to me.

Is there probably a need for addressing elsewhere. Yes. Here no.

This discussion is about Pee Wee's not Bantams. I have seen a bunch many having to do with size difference, big kid checks small kids but he hits the head because he's so much bigger, big kid blows up little kid cause his size difference makes it easy for him. Fair play points only work if refs enforce current rules consistently ... there lies the problem IMO

SilentDeadlyGuy - I know you're not in favor of changing it, but your comment suggests that at Bantams there is no longer a huge size discrepancy. I would argue that at Bantams there is just as large a size discrepancy as you have six foot plus, 200 lb kids playing against five foot 3 kids weighing 125lbs... throw in the speed of bantams and you've got a recipe for much more danger than at the Pee Wees where the game is slower.

I actually think the biggest danger in a game surrounds talent discrepancy, i.e. one of the top teams playing against one of the bottom teams... lack of hockey sense (most often experience), poor skating and poor coaching lead to more problems than size discrepancies.

I know you're not a radical looking to put helmets on our Bauer/CCM - Helmeted kids... but I'm just sayin'...

[silentbutdeadly3139]

This discussion is about Pee Wee's not Bantams. I have seen a bunch many having to do with size difference, big kid checks small kids but he hits the head because he's so much bigger, big kid blows up little kid cause his size difference makes it easy for him. Fair play points only work if refs enforce current rules consistently ... there lies the problem IMO

SilentDeadlyGuy - I know you're not in favor of changing it, but your comment suggests that at Bantams there is no longer a huge size discrepancy. I would argue that at Bantams there is just as large a size discrepancy as you have six foot plus, 200 lb kids playing against five foot 3 kids weighing 125lbs... throw in the speed of bantams and you've got a recipe for much more danger than at the Pee Wees where the game is slower.

I actually think the biggest danger in a game surrounds talent discrepancy, i.e. one of the top teams playing against one of the bottom teams... lack of hockey sense (most often experience), poor skating and poor coaching lead to more problems than size discrepancies.

I know you're not a radical looking to put helmets on our Bauer/CCM - Helmeted kids... but I'm just sayin'...

Not suggesting there isn't size difference. As you say there is a lot of skill discrepancies at Pee Wee, I would guess more at least more than at Bantams because of sheer numbers. Just trying to keep this on topic ... its not about how few hits were seen at Bantams or how other non-contact sports are more dangerous. That doesn't mean there is a problem at Pee Wees. I've seen 3 kids, all GOOD Skaters with heads up have to leave games this past week because of unnecessary hits to the head and nothing was called.

[OrangeKoolaid]

Checking needs to be taught at the peewee level and the coaches need to teach the kids how to properly check. The Refs need to come down hard on kids that are not checking properly and the kids that are just out to injure other players. I believe that they need to know how to check by the time they get to bantams or you just have really big kids that don't know what they are doing.

[greybeard58]

First for this change to be made it will have to be voted on at the USA Annual congress in June. Minn has 4 votes.

It should be discussed at the USA winter meeting in January and will have to come out of either the Safety or playing rules committee.

If this happens to be discussed at the winter meeting,the Mn Hockey meeting is the following weekend and more information should be available, another good reason for all to attend!

This thought is nothing new and was in place in the early 80's as my oldest played one year of Peewees with no checking and the 2nd year with checking, the game was also called different then and the equipment was also different. For what it is worth, when the face masks came yes less facial injuries but the sticks also were carried and played higher, and as the equipment has become better at protecting players it has also increased the intensity of the checks as the players do not feel the hit they are giving compared too years ago.

[NSHA Rules]

This could be so simple but I doubt that will be the case with USA Hockey.

Eliminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands".

If you don't have "Hands on Hands" you are going to the box. I coach and under the current rules we teach our kids like most coaches do, 1st guy in takes the body, 2nd guy in takes the puck. When you teach this to the kids they unfortunately come in 100 MPH and blow the kid up, this drives me crazy to say the least. I want the kids to hit but I want them to play the puck at the same time because in a lot of cases they could have gained the puck and they leave it for the BIG HIT!

If you teach the mentality of hands on hands you are going to see more controlled checks in my opinion and you are going to force more angling. They need to take away the NHL Live highlight reel checks that are causing the concussions and injuries.

Start teaching checking in the Squirts like checking the stick or the hands. I did with my kids and for the most part there were no penalties called when the kids did this and we were teaching the value of body position on the puck.

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

[observer]

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

I agree. Unbelievably stupid discussion. The game is evolving in a nice direction right now with a premium put on passing and puck control. Tackle football in the 3rd grade but now some don't think hockey players should hit until 8th grade?

[PanthersIn2011]

This could be so simple but I doubt that will be the case with USA Hockey.

Eliminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands".

If you don't have "Hands on Hands" you are going to the box. I coach and under the current rules we teach our kids like most coaches do, 1st guy in takes the body, 2nd guy in takes the puck. When you teach this to the kids they unfortunately come in 100 MPH and blow the kid up, this drives me crazy to say the least. I want the kids to hit but I want them to play the puck at the same time because in a lot of cases they could have gained the puck and they leave it for the BIG HIT!

If you teach the mentality of hands on hands you are going to see more controlled checks in my opinion and you are going to force more angling. They need to take away the NHL Live highlight reel checks that are causing the concussions and injuries.

Start teaching checking in the Squirts like checking the stick or the hands. I did with my kids and for the most part there were no penalties called when the kids did this and we were teaching the value of body position on the puck.

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

Great post!

P.S. It wouldn't exactly improve PeeWee hockey either.

[Bronc]

This could be so simple but I doubt that will be the case with USA Hockey.

Eliminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands".

If you don't have "Hands on Hands" you are going to the box. I coach and under the current rules we teach our kids like most coaches do, 1st guy in takes the body, 2nd guy in takes the puck. When you teach this to the kids they unfortunately come in 100 MPH and blow the kid up, this drives me crazy to say the least. I want the kids to hit but I want them to play the puck at the same time because in a lot of cases they could have gained the puck and they leave it for the BIG HIT!

If you teach the mentality of hands on hands you are going to see more controlled checks in my opinion and you are going to force more angling. They need to take away the NHL Live highlight reel checks that are causing the concussions and injuries.

Start teaching checking in the Squirts like checking the stick or the hands. I did with my kids and for the most part there were no penalties called when the kids did this and we were teaching the value of body position on the puck.

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

Great post!

P.S. It wouldn't exactly improve PeeWee hockey either.

I think there should be a two step rule still in place these are kids not NFL players and they have a hard time holding up once the ball is gone to QB's. If you are within two strides you don't want anyone holding up, but coming in full speed expecially to those skilled players you slow up they are gone. Even in the NFL keep the helmet and hands off the head and you still get a step, mabe two.

[the_juiceman]

This could be so simple but I doubt that will be the case with USA Hockey.

Eliminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands".

If you don't have "Hands on Hands" you are going to the box. I coach and under the current rules we teach our kids like most coaches do, 1st guy in takes the body, 2nd guy in takes the puck. When you teach this to the kids they unfortunately come in 100 MPH and blow the kid up, this drives me crazy to say the least. I want the kids to hit but I want them to play the puck at the same time because in a lot of cases they could have gained the puck and they leave it for the BIG HIT!

If you teach the mentality of hands on hands you are going to see more controlled checks in my opinion and you are going to force more angling. They need to take away the NHL Live highlight reel checks that are causing the concussions and injuries.

Start teaching checking in the Squirts like checking the stick or the hands. I did with my kids and for the most part there were no penalties called when the kids did this and we were teaching the value of body position on the puck.

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

Great post!

P.S. It wouldn't exactly improve PeeWee hockey either.

I think there should be a two step rule still in place these are kids not NFL players and they have a hard time holding up once the ball is gone to QB's. If you are within two strides you don't want anyone holding up, but coming in full speed expecially to those skilled players you slow up they are gone. Even in the NFL keep the helmet and hands off the head and you still get a step, mabe two.

what?

[HockeyGuy81]

This could be so simple but I doubt that will be the case with USA Hockey.

Eliminate the checking while not playing the puck, another words, "Hands on Hands".

If you don't have "Hands on Hands" you are going to the box. I coach and under the current rules we teach our kids like most coaches do, 1st guy in takes the body, 2nd guy in takes the puck. When you teach this to the kids they unfortunately come in 100 MPH and blow the kid up, this drives me crazy to say the least. I want the kids to hit but I want them to play the puck at the same time because in a lot of cases they could have gained the puck and they leave it for the BIG HIT!

If you teach the mentality of hands on hands you are going to see more controlled checks in my opinion and you are going to force more angling. They need to take away the NHL Live highlight reel checks that are causing the concussions and injuries.

Start teaching checking in the Squirts like checking the stick or the hands. I did with my kids and for the most part there were no penalties called when the kids did this and we were teaching the value of body position on the puck.

You just can't take checking away from the game until Bantams, that would be a disaster and would ruin the quality of Bantam hockey in my opinion.

Great post!

P.S. It wouldn't exactly improve PeeWee hockey either.

I think there should be a two step rule still in place these are kids not NFL players and they have a hard time holding up once the ball is gone to QB's. If you are within two strides you don't want anyone holding up, but coming in full speed expecially to those skilled players you slow up they are gone. Even in the NFL keep the helmet and hands off the head and you still get a step, mabe two.

Mr Madison, what you've just said...is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response...were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[nahc]

I have yet to see any numbers concerning concussions at the squirt, Pee Wee, and Bantam levels. This whole discussion is purely conjecture until we see hard numbers........and not the "well these haven't been reported", "don't know where to find them", etc.. Totally a moot point until then...........

[goldy313]

You're never going to get hard numbers, concussions aren't like a broken bone that can be seen on an X-ray. We're coming up with better techniques for finding them but even then barring being knocked out or getting an MRI it's hard to tell. The former Cinncinnati Bengal who died in a car wreck last year never had a diagnosed concussion but a post mortem MRI showed significant old brain contussions.

Hockey suffers from a terrible diachotomy, you get rewarded for putting yourself in a dangerous place; if you lower your head the impetus is on the defender to not hit you in the head. The defender can leave his hands down and elbows at his side but still get a penalty for head contact. In the past 10 years Iv'e seen a switch from players skating with their head up only glancing down to now where more kids skate with their head down and only glance up.

It's just my opinion but hockey may be better served by letting squirts check where the speeds are slower, body mass less, and bad habits like skating with your head down more easily correctable and less ingrained. We start kids playing tackle football at the squirt age where you can teach the proper techniques of hitting and taking a hit, why do we wait so long in hockey?

[O-townClown]

It's just my opinion but hockey may be better served by letting squirts check where the speeds are slower, body mass less, and bad habits like skating with your head down more easily correctable and less ingrained. We start kids playing tackle football at the squirt age where you can teach the proper techniques of hitting and taking a hit, why do we wait so long in hockey?

You've just laid out the argument for introducing "body contact" at younger ages. Positioning, angling, awareness, leaning...all easier to do when you know you're not going to get blasted by a guy taking a run.

[WB6162]

This was discussed about two months ago. Since the plan is to lower the age for body contact, I think this is great. It makes no sense to me to hold off until Pee Wees.

[DMom]

Not to put words in OT's mouth, but he's been consistent with wanting more body contact taught, not necessarily checking at squirts.

[HeShootsHeScores]

It's just my opinion but hockey may be better served by letting squirts check where the speeds are slower, body mass less, and bad habits like skating with your head down more easily correctable and less ingrained. We start kids playing tackle football at the squirt age where you can teach the proper techniques of hitting and taking a hit, why do we wait so long in hockey?

You've just laid out the argument for introducing "body contact" at younger ages. Positioning, angling, awareness, leaning...all easier to do when you know you're not going to get blasted by a guy taking a run.

I agree with this. It's hard to watch a first year pee wee. They don't realize it's not squirt hockey any longer. I can barely watch as they try to skate around players stickhandling all the while, watching the puck on their stick. They never see the hit coming. Most of the time the hits are legit, but the check looks so bad because the kid with the puck is as relaxed as a rag doll, day dreaming about how he's going to go to the net and score. I think it would be great for squirt coaches to work more on passing the puck, looking for an open player rather than trying to skate the puck end to end to try to score-I know, it's tough to teach this at the squirt level, but it can be done.

[This is silly!]

My .02¢

Instead of taking something away like everyone seems to like to do (in this case taking away checking from Pee Wee hockey). Why don't we focus our efforts instead on ADDING something - like proper training at the squirt level and below? This way the kids are better "heads up" players by the time they reach Pee Wees and therefore better prepared for body contact?

It seems to reason to me that moving checking BACK to Bantams actually moves BACK development instead of what proponents of the move are thinking it will do and expedite development.

The fatal flaw I see is that we aren't teaching the proper things at the lower levels and thus not preparing the kids properly. This opens up a whole big can of worms such as the argument of when the kids REALLY should be playing games instead of spending time on skating and stick handling development.

[JSR]

If every hockey player also played tackle football we wouldn't be having this discussion, which in my opinion, is a silly one.

Some kids are afraid of contact and play accordingly. The confusing part for some parents and coaches is that you don't know which mites and squirts it will be until they get to PeeWee. A few you will have suspected to be afraid but there will also be a few players you never suspected would have a problem with contact that will also avoid it. When it's your child it's difficult to experience for the first time.

It's their first experience with having permission to blast another kid. Can't do that at school. The only other place they could have become comfortable with hitting is football where they start hitting in 3rd grade. If they've been hitting since 3rd grade hitting in 6th grade won't be a problem. If they get their first exposure to hitting during their first PeeWee practice during the fall of 6th grade it's a big if if they will take to it without ever having any experience.

Tackle football is not offered until 6th grade where we live. And it's not offered until 4th or 5th in all surrounding communities. I realize there are parts of the country where it begins earlier than third grade but it's not everywhere so your solution doesn't work for everyone so to speak.

[woodywood]

Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

[drop the puck]

Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

Try 75 - 100 pounds weight differential at the Bantam level. It is Bantams where the size differential is the greatest - not PWs. Plenty of 90 - 110 pound Bantams and quite a few approaching 6' and 180 pounds if not more. Couple in the higher speed of the game.

As a player, coach and parent it has been my experience that Bantam level has more concussions and game limiting injuries than PW level and by a long shot.

It is about 8th or 9th grade where football injuries become more severe and game / season limiting too.

[Defensive Zone]

My .02¢

Instead of taking something away like everyone seems to like to do (in this case taking away checking from Pee Wee hockey). Why don't we focus our efforts instead on ADDING something - like proper training at the squirt level and below? This way the kids are better "heads up" players by the time they reach Pee Wees and therefore better prepared for body contact?

It seems to reason to me that moving checking BACK to Bantams actually moves BACK development instead of what proponents of the move are thinking it will do and expedite development.

The fatal flaw I see is that we aren't teaching the proper things at the lower levels and thus not preparing the kids properly. This opens up a whole big can of worms such as the argument of when the kids REALLY should be playing games instead of spending time on skating and stick handling development.

I have to agree Silly...Taking away something like checking is not the answer. Isn’t it the responsibility for us (coaches) to teach players how to play the game properly at all levels? When a set of skills are not introduced and/or developed like passing, skating, checking, etc., a player/team falls behind. Yes, safe checking is very important for both players. Proper checking should be reinforced daily. Develop the whole player.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

Try 75 - 100 pounds weight differential at the Bantam level. It is Bantams where the size differential is the greatest - not PWs. Plenty of 90 - 110 pound Bantams and quite a few approaching 6' and 180 pounds if not more. Couple in the higher speed of the game.

As a player, coach and parent it has been my experience that Bantam level has more concussions and game limiting injuries than PW level and by a long shot.

It is about 8th or 9th grade where football injuries become more severe and game / season limiting too.

I too disagree 100% with WoodyWood. His reaction demonstrates the true nature behind those who seek to eliminate checking, in my opinion - I think these individuals desire less injuries and are willing to try anything to reach their well-intentioned goal despite the unnecessary consequences, both intended and unintended.

The danger is that if this change happens and someone does a study showing that 1 fewer kid got hurt... these people feel justified.

Do people know how controversial it was to let people drive faster than 15 mph in the early parts of the 20th century??? People raved that people would get hurt as a result of it and that people couldn't handle it...

Can you imagine a world ruled by the fear inside people who jump for joy at the thought of eliminating checking from PeeWee hockey in the hope that a few less kids get hurt at the expense of the game as a whole?

Scares me to death...

[the_juiceman]

Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

Try 75 - 100 pounds weight differential at the Bantam level. It is Bantams where the size differential is the greatest - not PWs. Plenty of 90 - 110 pound Bantams and quite a few approaching 6' and 180 pounds if not more. Couple in the higher speed of the game.

As a player, coach and parent it has been my experience that Bantam level has more concussions and game limiting injuries than PW level and by a long shot.

It is about 8th or 9th grade where football injuries become more severe and game / season limiting too.

I too disagree 100% with WoodyWood. His reaction demonstrates the true nature behind those who seek to eliminate checking, in my opinion - I think these individuals desire less injuries and are willing to try anything to reach their well-intentioned goal despite the unnecessary consequences, both intended and unintended.

The danger is that if this change happens and someone does a study showing that 1 fewer kid got hurt... these people feel justified.

Do people know how controversial it was to let people drive faster than 15 mph in the early parts of the 20th century??? People raved that people would get hurt as a result of it and that people couldn't handle it...

Can you imagine a world ruled by the fear inside people who jump for joy at the thought of eliminating checking from PeeWee hockey in the hope that a few less kids get hurt at the expense of the game as a whole?

Scares me to death...

eliminating checking is not the solution to making kids better hockey players. teaching and coaching is the formula for better hockey players. checking is part of the game & when done with-in the rules of the game, it is and can be a important part of the game. The earlier they learn this the better. Improve the coaching, ref's enforcing the rules, parents knowing the rules are all steps to improve players & make it safe & fun.

[nofinish]

Having seen a number of kids deal with head injuries this is absolutely the right call. First thing first, on my kids' teams there is a size difference from top to bottom measured in feet, not inches. I'm guessing the biggest kids weigh 50 pounds more than the smaller ones. Guess who gets hurt?

By the time they are Bantams that height/weight difference is not as severe.

That said, a few of the 2nd year kids on the team are going to be pretyt upset that they can't hit next year.

30 years ago as a youth here in MN we learned to check in squirts. I played thru high school varsity as "one of the little guys" and my worst injury was a pulled groin. I credit this to learning early to play with your head up and prepare yourself to give and take checks.

Now that I have coached mites thru bantams by far the worst (dangerous) checks occur in first year of peewees when they learn how to give and take hits.
Woody, you do not want to introduce kids to checking when they are the size of bantams, it would be disasterous.

Coaches need to teach better, refs need to enforce better. Maybe allow more "body bumping" in squirts so they learn before they get too big.