Q&A from USAH on body checking in pee-wees

[O-townClown]

Like a wrote before, if this asenine rule passes, the peewee choice league at MM is going to triple in size. Parents will be lined up around the corner to get their sons 2 full years of checking before they go to bantams.

Also, in reference to the refs not wanting to deal with the new rule, I agree completely. It's awful now, the abuse these people take from parents, coaches, players. Now they will be asked to put even more discretion into their calls "was that a check?", "was that just a rub out?", "was he swinging his arms?". What a joke. Make these kids play 'ponytail' hockey for the first 8+ years of organized hockey is ridiculous. Hope the powers that be that run youth football don't get any crazy ideas like "you know, some of these kids are bigger than others. We shouldn't allow tackling until they are all 13 or 14 years old, because that will really allow the game to grow."

It isn't an asinine rule. Basketball in North Korea has asinine rules. You just disagree with it. I understand the benefit of status quo and I also see the benefits of the proposed changes.

If there were no rules today and you were starting from scratch, I think there is a lot of merit to the gradual introduction they describe. "What a joke." Maybe the joke is having a 'flip the switch approach' like we have.

The Mike Milbury story is priceless. Especially when you consider the heavily-penalized source. These videos are excellent, but I'm afraid not enough people are seeing them. I was viewer 200-something and they've been up on uStream for six weeks...that's like just 5 people per day. And we don't know that they are watching much of the hour. They really do an excellent job of making the case.

Part of me thinks that they are just moving a 'day of reckoning' back two years. But then I think of their desire to overlay the observational evidence (the two practices in Colorado) with what LTAD says is the trainability window for skill development and it does make sense.

It's funny, many people argue that the ADM and its application of LTAD principles is off-base, but nobody ever cites their own studies that refute the LTAD concepts. To me that shows a lack of understanding, which is understandable because it is dealing with the science of childhood development and the science of sport.

Soccer's studies have reached the same conclusion about rethinking how we approach teaching the game. If this really were a cockamamie idea there wouldn't be so much support from knowledgable people. (Cynics now say they only get buy-in because they exclude dissenters.)

As for the Choice league, perhaps that's what we need. A "control group" in Minnesota that doesn't follow suit when USA Hockey makes the rule. Otherwise how can you prove you are right?

Finally, for those that think this is the brainchild of a roomful of idiots, we now know who they guys are that came up with this. Among others, Kevin McLaughlin, the ADM guys, Mike Milbury, Brian Burke, Al MacInnis, and a Mayo Clinic doctor whose kids play in the NHL. Whether or not we agree, these guys are all informed enough to be entitled to their own opinion.

[Deep Breath]

Any rule that is going to have some players entering high school hockey with just one year of checking under the belts is an asenine rule.

[Deep Breath]

I think many would agree that the two most violent sports, at least for youth players up into their high school years, are football and hockey. Can throw lacrosse and rugby into the fray, but many communities don't have those activities available, so lets stick with football and hockey. Even at smaller associations, youth football players will have at minimum, 4 years of tackling experience under their belts before they hit the varsity high school field. We use the high school level because, whether dads want to believe it or not, that is the highest level the vast majority of kids will play. Now, as has been stated, if this checking rule passes, you will have some kids on the varsity ice who have had exactly one season of checking to prepare them for the hitting that takes place at the varsity level. Not seeing, exactly, as how that grows the game.

[Mite-dad]

As I've stated before on this subject, comparing football and hockey is not a valid comparison. Football is slower, is played on a soft grass field with no solid walls, and most kids can run and move with a high level of skill at a fairly young age. Hockey is faster, is played on a solid (hard) surface surrounded by solid walls that give very little, and there is a fairly large (in some associations) disparity in skating skill (which is directly correlated to how well a kid can deliver or receive a check). Apples and oranges IMVHO.

[old goalie85]

Why can't they leave everything the way it is??? If you don't want your kid to hit then have him play u12. if you want your daughter to play with hitting let her play pee-wee. Should be that simple right????

[jBlaze3000]

There have been a number of recent studies (in Canada at the AAA level) showing that the serious injury rate at Peewee is 4 times greater in checking vs. non-checking leagues.

How is one supposed to interpret this data? How does the injury rate in PeeWee hockey compare to other sports? You could probably do a study that shows the injury rate in Squirt hockey is 10 times the rate of those who play the violin but that doesn't mean anything.

Are injuries on the rise in Pee Wee's? I'd need to see a lot more info on this statement before I'd be on board with taking checking out of the game.

[InigoMontoya]

There have been a number of recent studies (in Canada at the AAA level) showing that the serious injury rate at Peewee is 4 times greater in checking vs. non-checking leagues.

How is one supposed to interpret this data? How does the injury rate in PeeWee hockey compare to other sports? You could probably do a study that shows the injury rate in Squirt hockey is 10 times the rate of those who play the violin but that doesn't mean anything.

Are injuries on the rise in Pee Wee's? I'd need to see a lot more info on this statement before I'd be on board with taking checking out of the game.

The obvious next question would be: what is the serious injury rate in bantams that played in a checking peewee league v. bantams that played in a non-checking league?

[Deep Breath]

If you don't want to compare football and hockey, that's fine. The fact is that one sport is allowing players more time to get accustomed to the physical aspect of it's game before putting them together on the same stage when the players are at their largest; while the other sport is going in the opposite direction. Regardless of what the comparison would be, I don't see how putting a hockey player on a varsity sheet of ice with 1 year of checking experience is good for that player or will grow the game.

[Mite-dad]

If you don't want to compare football and hockey, that's fine. The fact is that one sport is allowing players more time to get accustomed to the physical aspect of it's game before putting them together on the same stage when the players are at their largest; while the other sport is going in the opposite direction. Regardless of what the comparison would be, I don't see how putting a hockey player on a varsity sheet of ice with 1 year of checking experience is good for that player or will grow the game.

I hear you. I don't know what the best answer is either. I keep trying to figure it out in my head if the timing is better for a first year PW to learn how to check when he still doesn't know how to skate worth a darn, or a first year bantam who usually knows quite well how to skate to learn it.

[old goalie85]

Why not teach it [ by allowing it] from quirts on up???

[hockeyfan74]

Mite-dad - Are you serious - Can't skate as a first year pee-wee. I am glad my kids don't play hockey in the same place you are.

[O-townClown]

Why not teach it [ by allowing it] from quirts on up???

Basically what the proposed rule change would do.

Introduce and teach body contact from Mites on and require Pee Wee coaches to teach body checking in practice for two years before doing it in games.

Kids just older than this learn to drive in a similar fashion.

Many people ask the question why change. Seriously, after reading their material and watching these videos you should have the answer.

I'll support it if it passes and I'll be just as happy if it doesn't. Seems like it is pretty much a done deal.

[old goalie85]

Bernie better build a couple more rinks. We might need a choice up here in the north east metro. Lord help us!!!!!

[O-townClown]

Bernie better build a couple more rinks. We might need a choice up here in the north east metro. Lord help us!!!!!

Yes, Lord help us if evil USA Hockey removes blow-up checks from the 11 & 12-year-old division.

Somehow I think the sport can survive. If not, the game isn't healthy like I think it is.

The alarmist language makes it hard to discuss. In those videos, it was cool to watch #91. But notice how he never got the puck himself. Taking out the takedown means he's working just as hard to steal the puck. Maybe he becomes a goalscorer in the long run.

[abc123]

I will start by asking this question! I guess i'm a bit confused on this! Will this in turn just be like a Squirt game with only Pee wee age players? what i mean is no checking at all? or No open ice hits?
If this is so this is going to be a huge advantage for the Bigger and stronger players, I mean if big strong skater can't be bumped off the puck he will be unstopable.
At the pee wee level 1 player can make a team very good and very competitive but you can slow him down if you can throw a body on him and take his hands away.
If this element is taken out of the game this player will even have a bigger advantage more so than if this player can check smaller players. This rule will make other players obsolete on the ice @ times because the larger more talented stronger skater will have his way with teams because their will be no way to stop this player from separating him from the puck and he will score @ will while stronger kid takes over the game. what i am trying to say is i think this will make some players very one dimensional.
Also I believe that this will hurt girls hockey teams. You will now have girls playing with boys more often because the physical part of the game will not be a factor anymore. So those girls teams will now lose some of their top players to boys hockey for a few years.
I think this rule needs to be looked @ more closely and studied more. I can see this rule passing but only staying for a few years before we find out that it is detrimental to the sport.

[old goalie85]

O-town I may be stuck in the past. The old goalie is not good with change. I truly feel that it will indeed [in mn] add 25 % more girls to pee-wee hockey. The reason -- Parents will think little Suzy is getting a leg up on the comp.

[hockeyfan74]

O-town - Is our goal to survive or thrive. I would rather see hockey in the US thrive and the decisions being made by USA Hockey are not letting that happen. Sure hockey will survive and I guess with how our society is today where everyone gets an award, we don't teach our kids that hard work is the key to success and teaching them to compete is bad surviving would be considered good. I can't wait until some of todays kids get fired from there job and ask why - I show up everyday - you mean I actually have to work. That's not fair I have received awards my whole life for showing up why do I have to work now? I have always said the lesson I learned playing sports were some of the most valuable lessons I ever learned. We are setting up today's youth to fail with our make it easy and don't push little johnny attitude. This would be a another step back. Now the same kid that goes cost to cost at mites and squirts will be able to do that until Bantams - ouch! How does that benefit anyone? I watched a couple great pee-wee games this past weekend. Great pace and very fun to watch. Couple kids tried then end to end rush - not to successfully because they were removed from the puck with very good and clean checks. Why does everyone keep talking about the big blow-up checks. I am talking about taking good angles and separating the opposing player from the puck with solid clean body checks. This forces kids to keep their heads up and move the puck. Once again in my opinion taking checking away from pee-wees would slow down the development not make it better - but then again hockey would survive.

[Mite-dad]

Mite-dad - Are you serious - Can't skate as a first year pee-wee. I am glad my kids don't play hockey in the same place you are.

You need to get outside the metro or go to a PWB or PWC game once in awhile. Our kids made it to the PWB state tourney last year and believe me, there are many kids on every team still developing skating skills at the PW level. We have some kids in our program with only 1 or 2 years of hockey under their belt at the PW level. You obviously are not part of a smaller program. Smaller programs often have to have a wide range of skill level to field teams. Our current PWA team has at least half PWB (if not C) level players on it. It is reality for a lot of associations. BTW, I'm glad you aren't in our community also.

[O-townClown]

O-town - Is our goal to survive or thrive. I would rather see hockey in the US thrive and the decisions being made by USA Hockey are not letting that happen.

Why does everyone keep talking about the big blow-up checks. I am talking about taking good angles and separating the opposing player from the puck with solid clean body checks. This forces kids to keep their heads up and move the puck. Once again in my opinion taking checking away from pee-wees would slow down the development not make it better - but then again hockey would survive.

First point: Goal is to thrive. Gonna side with USA Hockey here. They are on a roll in terms of their role in player development. Sorry.

Second point: Because that's all they are taking out of the game. As I understood the definitions explained in the video, good angles and separating the opposing player are not checks. Those fall under the umbrella of body contact.

One of us needs to rewatch the video. I will attend the meeting in two weeks as well since it is here.

[abc123]

Where can i find this Video on Blow up checks?

[DMom]

I am curious, and I don't feel like browsing everyone's by-laws. In District 2 a skater can only get 3 minor penalties and they are done for the game. I know that some districts get 5 or more. I also know that once a District 2 player gets 2 penalties they change their game a great deal because they don't want to be tossed.

I just think there are a lot of other options rather than banning it altogether.

OT, are they redefining the word checking to only include illegal hits? Seperating the kid from the puck but with no body to body contact?

[Intheslot]

Don't worry og85, I'm sure USAH is already exploring ways to repace "youth hockey" with Boys OR Girls hockey. I can hear the lawyers sharpening their pencils already!

[hockeyfan74]

OTC - first point - I have to disagree with you - If I would have left the development of my two boys up to the USA hockey development model they would not be where they are today. USA Hockey has limited the younger athletes way to much with their ADM. It is a good thing they have had great coaches in the off season that go against most of what USA hockey preaches. It is still skill development but in a much better way. This is the first year my younger son has really experienced ADM because we moved houses and in to a new association and he has not had much fun. I ran the mite program in a different association before we moved and broke almost every rule you could. Why - because I felt my job was to develop hockey players and I did it the best way I could.

Second point - So you are telling me if a player next year is back checking and they catch an opposing player drop their shoulder and drive through their body and hands and come out with the puck that won't be called a check? Or if a Defensemen has a one on one and they stand the forward up with a good clean hit that won't get called either? Those are not big blow up hits but examples of good clean body checks.

I love how you put your opinion of this matter into one video of one game. how many pee-wee games were played last year? I am guessing more than one. Pretty weak case if you ask me.

[PanthersIn2011]

Some things that irk me about this rule change and the thinking behind it ....

1) USAH is positioning this in the context of the "skill acquisition window." Is giving and taking a check not a skill?

2) Along the same lines, in my experience as a coach, the single biggest motivator to developing passing skills is the threat of being checked. Ditto for handling the puck with your head up. Probably half of the kids that I've coached have needed to get knocked arse over teakettle before they really start to get this. The game itself teaches in ways that coaches cannot.

3) I have yet to see a comprehensive effort by USAH to eliminate the dangerous and already illegal contact that plagues the game. They did this for obstruction and the "new rules" 5 years ago. At the time, I remember saying that they were going after the wrong problem at the youth level. They failed to take the first basic steps at fixing the problem, and now are jumping forward to a very extreme measure.

4) This is a unilateral move that will put American players at a disadvantage.

O-town: I enjoy your perspectives in general on this forum, but I think you're helping throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

[Deep Breath]

So basically, by passing this rule, not only are they gonna limit the hockey players' ability to get more prepared for the "overt" checking, they are gonna dump it on the shoulders of the referees to use even more judgement in a game. "Was that a check?", "was that just incidental contact?", "did he bring his arms up?" What a joke.

Do something during this next week. Take a minute or two to speak to somebody who is a certified referee at the youth level. I have spoken to refs at every game my kids have played since word of this rule came out and I have I have not yet found a single ref who is looking forward to having to deal with the wrath of parents and coaches when it comes to determining if it was a check or not.