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

[MN_Hcky_Coach]

How the rule is called will determine if the rule serves its purpose(s). Here's a thought, instead of putting more grey areas into the game for the refs to call...Allow body checking at all levels of hockey, but when the kids are in squirts and peewees, any penalty that is a charge, boarding, check from behind or head contact (elbow or hands to the face) is an automatic 5 min major and 10 min misconduct. That way, legal and game appropriate body checks are still part of the game and inappropriate contact like the ones mentioned above are strictly penalized.

[O-townClown]

OTC - first point -

1. I have to disagree with you -

1.5 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Pretty weak case if you ask me.

1. Of course

1.5. "Where they are today" - USA Hockey has never said there is only one way to reach a destination. When they look from the top down they see holes. And they have made recommendations to close them.

2. Some great coaches would argue they aren't great coaches. I get it. There are different ways to get to a destination. To me, the truly great understand the benefits of different methods.

3. "The first year he experienced ADM" - clarify. Are you using Red, White & Blue hockey (name to replace crossice Mites) as a blanket term for ADM, or are you including all aspects of ADM. ADM covers a lot, from the rule changes for checking (they were on the ADM timeline I was given a year ago) to HPC and more.

4. And I'm sure you'll be seeing Mike Milbury, Brian Burke, Kevin McLaughlin, and everyone else deferring to your wisdom. (Sarcasm.) Seriously, this is not going to be a my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad argument from me. You disagree with what others have studied and concluded. I don't. I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I remain steadfast in my support of what they are doing because it makes sense when they explain it to me.

5. Not a check. Not by the definitions they gave. Rewatch that part of the video if you need to.

6. Stand them up? No check. Not by the definitions they gave. You used the word hit. As long as it isn't a run at a kid entering the zone, which I wouldn't call standing someone up, it isn't a check by the definition they gave. Standing up is an example of the proper use of the body they want to push down to Mites. I am all for more contact at younger ages.

7. When did I do that? My views are the result of attending our affiliate's meeting, attending the last USA Hockey Winter meeting, my dinner with the ADM representative for our area, reading all the material they've provided (which I will admit comes slowly), and speaking to others. Nice broad-brush to sweep that under the rug. USA Hockey provided those clips to illustrate a point. Did you want them to clip video from every Pee Wee game in America to compile a "Greatest Hits" of hits? (Even if they did, #91 probably makes it for some of those. Gotta admit, they picked some good ones to show.)

8. Yeah. A weak case. E-mail from a friend today said he thought the 'weak cases' are from those that don't understand the definitions USA Hockey is using for contact, hitting and checking. 'Weak cases' from failure to watch the videos posted by Elliott (I think it was Mark) on this thread. (Seriously, views are still around 200? We've had that many people post on this thread. Would think the starting point for an 'argument' is to gather the needed information to form a rebuttal.

Burke's first quote about ADM was that the principles are sound. Challenge is information. Nothing has changed in two years.

[woogieboogiewoogie]

Just like girls hockey? Are more girls going to be playing PeeWee's with this rule change? Will this change the way associations look at boys and girls programs? Girls playing PeeWee's will no longer be a big deal. Will there be a need for 10U and 12U girls hockey moving forward? I was just kidding about the last sentence.. But I think this will definitely change where girls play moving forward. Thoughts?

[hockeyfan74]

OTC - I do agree there are some good points with the ADM, but there are also some really bad ones to. Tough to get into all the specifics, but I know I am not the only one with that opinion. As I said in another thread my oldest boy played against two very talented and very physical players that are Russian, they play in California. I talked a length with their dad's who grew up playing hockey in Russia about what they do for development and their thoughts on the ADM. The told me straight out they started their own hockey team because of all the holes in the ADM. They had some great insight and as good as their boys were I took note. I like to consider myself a sponge and am always trying to get better and learn more. I also believe minds are like parachutes they only work when they are open. As I have said I just don't agree with a lot of the decisions USA hockey has been making. Just my opinion - not saying I am right - not saying I am wrong. You always provide good insight - just have to disagree with you on this one. If you feel I am misinformed or do not fully understand feel free to send me a private message.

As far as what is a check and what is not - the definition must have changed because I coached high school varsity girls hockey for over 10 years and both my examples would have been called checks. You don't need to take a run at someone for it to be a check.

I just don't see why they feel the need to change it. I still believe it would be better to introduce them to checking at squirts and then at pee-wees they will understand the proper way to hit and receive at hit. As I have said if their goal is to increase the skill of the players in my opinion this is not the way to do it. The tough part is we may never know - Unless you have two leagues - One with checking and one without at pee-wees you won't have anything to compare it to.

[hockeyfan74]

Mite-dad - I missed your response sorry. To answer your question Currently my boys play in a medium size association, but until this year they played at what I would consider a small association. We had under 100 total skaters from Bantams all they way to squirts. We had 2 or 3 teams at each level. What I will tell you is my self and another gentlemen ran our mite program and we got together with the upper level coaches and put a program in place that overemphasized skating. We did a ton of edge and stride work. Obviously not all the kids were great skaters, but the groups we worked with are at pee-wees and squirts right now and most of them skate well enough to know how to take and receive a check. We also worked with kids on how to skate through the hands and get low and strong along the boards to fight through body contact since they were mites. Once again by no means are they world beaters but they definitely have the basics. It goes back to what I have said on the no checking until pee-wees thread - education. Our jobs as coaches and parents is to educate our players the best we can so they are prepared. We don't need to remove checking from pee-wees - We need to better prepare players for pee-wees!

[O-townClown]

1. OTC - I do agree there are some good points with the ADM, but there are also some really bad ones to. Tough to get into all the specifics, but I know I am not the only one with that opinion. As I said in another thread my oldest boy played against two very talented and very physical players that are Russian, they play in California. I talked a length with their dad's who grew up playing hockey in Russia about what they do for development and their thoughts on the ADM. The told me straight out they started their own hockey team because of all the holes in the ADM.

2. They had some great insight and as good as their boys were I took note.

3. I like to consider myself a sponge and am always trying to get better and learn more. I also believe minds are like parachutes they only work when they are open.

4. As I have said I just don't agree with a lot of the decisions USA hockey has been making. Just my opinion - not saying I am right - not saying I am wrong. You always provide good insight - just have to disagree with you on this one. If you feel I am misinformed or do not fully understand feel free to send me a private message.

5. As far as what is a check and what is not - the definition must have changed because I coached high school varsity girls hockey for over 10 years and both my examples would have been called checks. You don't need to take a run at someone for it to be a check.

6. I just don't see why they feel the need to change it.

7. I still believe it would be better to introduce them to checking at squirts and then at pee-wees they will understand the proper way to hit and receive at hit. As I have said if their goal is to increase the skill of the players in my opinion this is not the way to do it.

8. The tough part is we may never know - Unless you have two leagues - One with checking and one without at pee-wees you won't have anything to compare it to.

1. One dad talking to two Russian parents is a smaller sample size than a team at the national level talking to hundreds of people.

2. USA Hockey has been pretty clear that their goal isn't to have the best Pee Wee kid in the world. The complaint in Canada is that the professional players don't have a ton of fire in their belly to get better because it was beaten out of them by a system that puts too much pressure on them too young. Russians came to the US and got fat in some cases when they were not closely supervised. We could go 'round and 'round with anecdotal evidence.

3. Open enough to let this run its course and see if there is merit to it? Doesn't sound like it.

4. No problem. Respectful discussion for sure. Maybe they're all wrong and I'm stupid to support it.

5. I found their explanations easy to understand. For all the talk about officials disagreeing with this, it is my impression a communication plan has not been rolled out to them yet. Seems to me a lot of people don't understand many of the fine points.

6. Perhaps the fact that they see top American players lagging peers from Sweden, the old Czecholslovakia, or other areas.

7. To-may-to, to-mah-to. They want to introduce contact in Mites and teach checking in Pee Wee and have 13 and 14-year-olds playing as they do now. You agree on a gradual approach and choose to disagree over something pretty trivial.

8. Canada has that. Quebec versus the rest of the country provides a nice case study.

Remember the XFL? A gimmick was "NO FAIR CATCHES" allowed. It sounded so brutal. (I was a season-ticket holder. Five games at home and the league folded. Anyway...) There was also a "5 yard bubble" which negated the need for a fair catch. Let the guy catch it an he would run. The rule change was really no different, and if anything it opened up the game.

In this example, "NO CHECKING UNTIL BANTAMS" is the headline grabber and "body contact allowed in Mites and Squirts" is the forgotten half rendering the other part almost meaningless.

[Mite-dad]

Mite-dad - I missed your response sorry. To answer your question Currently my boys play in a medium size association, but until this year they played at what I would consider a small association. We had under 100 total skaters from Bantams all they way to squirts. We had 2 or 3 teams at each level. What I will tell you is my self and another gentlemen ran our mite program and we got together with the upper level coaches and put a program in place that overemphasized skating. We did a ton of edge and stride work. Obviously not all the kids were great skaters, but the groups we worked with are at pee-wees and squirts right now and most of them skate well enough to know how to take and receive a check. We also worked with kids on how to skate through the hands and get low and strong along the boards to fight through body contact since they were mites. Once again by no means are they world beaters but they definitely have the basics. It goes back to what I have said on the no checking until pee-wees thread - education. Our jobs as coaches and parents is to educate our players the best we can so they are prepared. We don't need to remove checking from pee-wees - We need to better prepare players for pee-wees!

Sorry I got defensive. But I see a lot of subpar skating from PW kids out here in central MN. You are absolutely right about coaching and parenting our kids through the checking transformation. This is an area that needs more emphasis and always has. We sent our boys to a week long checking camp before PWs. While it probably helped, my oldest son still ended up w/ two minor concussions last year. One from a check from behind and one on a blindsided hit that sent his head into the crossbar.

[silentbutdeadly3139]

A link http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10856788 to the video and i strongly suggest everyone should watch it. More contact and "checking" than what i expected and may easier to ref than what I/we think. Could almost look at it as making a stronger emphasis on current rules and removing the "big" hits. I know what everyone is thinking, whats a "big" hit ... I go back to supreme courts response when asked to define porn. "I cant define it, but I know it when I see it". Maybe the "big" hit can be defined as the one you don't want your kid on the receiving end of. Still not sure I like the rule as it could go too far but the definition/explanation in video is better than what I was expecting.

[hockeyfan74]

OTC - Sorry was at a great pee-wee game tonight. Anyways we could go back and forth on this forever. The reason I used the example of my conversation with the two Russian dads is the Director of my previous district made the statement that USA Hockey had a representative in Russia to learn more about how they develop players and that was a big reason for the ADM. So I asked the source - guys that grew up in and played in Russia. They said that is not even close to how they develop hockey players. Maybe I received bad information from the district director. As you stated there is more than one way.

Team Canada looked pretty hungry in the last Olympics when they walked away with the Gold Medal.

Based on the US having pretty good recent success in the Junior World Championships and taking silver in the last Olympics with a pretty young squad I would say we really are not lacking behind.

As I said we could go round and round forever. I don't think we are going to agree. That is what makes the forum great is we get a variety of opinions. Have fun at the USA hockey meeting.

[O-townClown]

OTC - Sorry was at a great pee-wee game tonight. Anyways we could go back and forth on this forever. The reason I used the example of my conversation with the two Russian dads is the Director of my previous district made the statement that USA Hockey had a representative in Russia to learn more about how they develop players and that was a big reason for the ADM. So I asked the source - guys that grew up in and played in Russia. They said that is not even close to how they develop hockey players. Maybe I received bad information from the district director. As you stated there is more than one way.

You didn't get bad information from the district director and you didn't get bad information from the Russian guys. A lot of misinformation and misinterpretation everywhere.

Soccer folks studied their sport like hockey folks did. What they found is that many of the best players in the world received very little instruction until age 10, when adults started getting involved. Is this the way all Brazilians grow up? No. Is this the way the famed Ajax Academy is structured? No.

The Brazilians on the national team tend to be the poor ones. So one point for the barefoot-in-the-back-alley crowd. They also note that the players at an academy like Ajax are often chosen for potential and their custodians are careful not to burn them out.

What results is the Long-Term Athlete Development principles. Remember, the hockey guys worked independently and reached an essentially identical conclusion.

Love the game and build general athleticism in the early stages. Teach teach teach skills in the pre-teen window. Allow kids to get through their growth spurt before giving up on them. And then train the heck out of the best ones in late-teen an early adult years.

A friend described a Pee Wee player this way. "He couldn't be any better than he is." The label came because he was heavily, heavily trained. So what happens next if he lags his friends in growing? Maybe he comes to hate the game that once gave him so much pleasure. In which case he won't be as good as he could be at age 17, which kind of renders his place at age 12 meaningless.

People can disagree with the conclusion reached by the people leading USA Hockey. I don't see how they can disagree with the process. They took a very scientific approach to the problems they see.

My Swedish friend, now in his 40s, says they grew up with basically a three-season rotation from school gymnastics to hockey to soccer. Is it any wonder they are superior tactically to North Americans? Is it any wonder they have so many elite players?

People want to play 75 games and put all the best players on the same team to compete at the highest level possible. The ADM preaches all that too. They just are looking out to age 17 instead of 7.

Russian player development looked like it was in more need of a makeover, then their Junior kids won last week. What is probably happening is that people are borrowing different training methods. If it is like mixed martial arts the result will be better players in general.

The ADM is a philosophy on player development. I'm surprised at the number of people that think it is something they would have to follow lock-step to reap the benefits from. My son gets 30 minutes of crossice games each week in one of his practices. He loves it and you can see the skills improve. Checking will be reined in on Pee Wee games. If some coach thinks this is bad he can let them do it in practice. (Oh wait, that's actually what it calls for.)

[hockeyfan74]

OTC - Thanks for the information. I appreciate your insight. Obviously we got a little off track. My boys do play 3 sports as well - Hockey, Football and Baseball. I believe playing multiple sports make you an all around better athlete which in turn makes you better at each sport you play. I also agree with you about not burning a kid out. When I ran my mite teams we would be indoors 2 to 3 days per week - sometimes we would get an weeknight hour. I used those times to really focus on skill development and small area games. I would also go outdoors 2 days per week and have the boys play pond hockey. No instruction just let them be creative and have fun. My big issue came to Mn Hockey limiting the mites from playing games. I played a lot more full-ice games than I was allowed because my view is if the kids are going to work hard in practice they need a reward and the games are their reward. My younger son has a great coach this year. He does a great job with his practices - Lots of skill work and stations. Small Area games in practice as well. The challenge is they have only played a couple games. I literally have to drag him to practice because he wants to play games like his older brother does. If they don't have a reward for their work they won't have fun and then we lose hockey players. Kids are smarter than most people give them credit for they watch a lot of hockey whether it be pro - college - older siblings. They want to be like them. I understand USA Hockey try's to put rules in place to make up for people that can't or don't understand how to coach, but they limit those of us who can. That is the same thing with this checking rule. There are some coaches that want kids to go out and blow someone up, but most coaches understand the real reason for checking. Once again in my opinion this is an overreaction and instead of punishing the players USA Hockey should focus on putting programs in place to educate parents, coaches and players on the proper techniques of how to check and receive a check. The players in today's game are so much more skilled than they were when I played. If we could handle it - I know they can. I feel 100% of success is preparation and communication. Regardless of whether the change is right or wrong USA Hockey failed in their preparation and communication of this rule change. They could have done a MUCH better job preparing and communicating with us (their customer) on a lot of the changes they have made and why they have made them.

[DMan-dad]

5. 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?

6. 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.

5. Not a check. Not by the definitions they gave. Rewatch that part of the video if you need to.

6. Stand them up? No check. Not by the definitions they gave. You used the word hit. As long as it isn't a run at a kid entering the zone, which I wouldn't call standing someone up, it isn't a check by the definition they gave. Standing up is an example of the proper use of the body they want to push down to Mites. I am all for more contact at younger ages.

OTC, You almost had me convinced, so I went and watched the video last night. I'm paraphrasing, but they said any assertive movement of the hips, arm, or shoulder IS considered a check. I think if the backchecker drives through the hands and body of the puck carrier, it will be illegal. It seemed to me in those videos that whenever the player with the puck fell down, it was an example of an illegal hit under the new rules. Seems to be the same rules as womens' hockey.

I have a first year PeeWee right now. He checked last summer, is checking now, and will check this summer in AAA. He's finally "getting it" that a pinch-off along the boards to gain control is better than a blow-up hit. But the pinch-off always includes a little shoulder or hip contact, and my fear is that this will be called a penalty. Next year will be a complete mess for 2nd year PeeWees - they won't know what's a penalty and what isn't. They won't know when to go for the puck and when to back off, and I can see the reffing being very inconsistent.

Nope, don't like it one bit.

[O-townClown]

Hockey fan:

USA Hockey is advocating a strong practice-to-game ratio, but they want those practices to be full of age-appropriate games that kids play. My son gives me a daily update on what happened at recess. Kids left on their own will come up with games. They don't come up with 200' x 85'.

Our ADM guy said they really want to get away from "full ice games as a reward" because it minimizes what they are trying to accomplish. Maybe we need to call it "full ice games as a progression" after they've built up their skills. We both know there will be a lot fewer hockey decisions made per minute.

D-man Dad:

The one that I was baffled by is the hit from the Quebec PW tournament. Defender angles guy into corner and smashes him into the board. (Wall since we are in Canada?) NO PENALTY! That's what they said. And it is right about using your body to squeeze someone into an area with no space.

2nd year Pee Wees will be confused for a week. Maybe less. At some point they'll realize they can play the way they used to and just need to be more cognizant of the puck when playing the man.

[old goalie85]

D-man I have a 98 that is a first year pee-wee. I agree the kids will go backwards as far as I'm concerned.

[hockeyfan74]

OTC - That is funny because my son plays football most days at recess and him and his buddies get permission to go play on the biggest field possible. To him it is better to score a touchdown on a long run than a short one. Besides you must not have read my post fully. Yes I understand small area games and the cross-ice concept. That is what my practices are for. Maybe my kid is the only one that watches a lot of hockey and wants to play like them. There are plenty of benefits to full ice games as well. As I said I see mite age kids do stuff with the puck that pee-wees couldn't do when I played. The players today are far more skilled today than they were even 10 years ago. My nephew plays high school hockey and he can't believe what some of these younger kids can do. There are much more opportunities for kids to develop today than I had or even my nephew had when he played. The rise in skill has very little to do with ADM in our area and much more to do with kids just simply being on the ice more today than ever before. As you said and I agree 100% with you that you don't want to burn these kids out. So the million dollar question is how much is too much?

[elliott70]

We have some small associations where kids go from peewee to JV (or varsity) as 8th graders.

No checking to a JV-varsity game....


Practicing checking and playing in a game with checking are two different things...

USAH may be trying to accomplish something in 49 other states but in MN I think we are ahead of them...
we (most of us) did skip the blue puck fiasco.

[O-townClown]

Just remember that in a full-ice Mite game the breakaway skater often has free reign. The best adults make decisions quickly and understand where others are on the ice. Having them play in a tight space is a good thing.

My son is not in a pure Red, White & Blue program. I don't think fullice is completely evil. Together it seems kids and parents are getting their needs met.

[elliott70]

In our district we may have 2 (maybe) serious injuries (need a trip to the hospital) a season in pee-wees per level.

In bantams it is probably 6 to 8.

In the last 12 years 3 to 6 % of any given year pee-wee/bantam group advance to D1 hockey.

We play (relatively) safe and develop kids.
USAH takes $40 per player every year and what do we get in return....
right an insurance policy that protects for catastrophic injuries but very little else.

These people that are doing these studies do not coach pee-wees.
If they could show where checking ahs put a small (even a very small) percent of pee-wee players into a life changing situation by being checked than, yes, make the change.
But their studies seem marginal, at best.

[elliott70]

Small game/cross-ice hockey is not a new thing....

That is what I grew up with and those that know me, know that was a long-time ago.

[O-townClown]

USAH may be trying to accomplish something in 49 other states but in MN I think we are ahead of them...
we (most of us) did skip the blue puck fiasco.

Three strong teams got together Sunday for games on an Olympic sheet. Scores were 8-5, 2-1, and 2-1. One was played with a blue puck and the others used black. (One is the Mite team from a Tier I program and another was an all-star team from two programs.)

The games with black pucks seemed a little sluggish. Very few passes connected. Goalies were mostly concerned with the lower half of the net.

Put me down in support of the blue puck. Also, youth sticks for Mites. Had a guy at a shop telling me kids won't develop 'feel'. I see kids with heavy sticks and they can't do much with them. Gotta feel like a log to them.

I'd rather see a kid develop stick handling, shooting, and passing skills than feel.

[hockeyfan74]

Elliot - I definitely agree with you on the blue puck vs. black puck. We had two local mite teams play last weekend - no all-star teams involved and the black puck moved just fine. Even saw a few D to D passes and some neutral zone regroups. Kids had no problems hitting the upper corners either. The black puck was not an issue for our little non all-stars. Tried the whole blue puck thing a couple years ago and it was terrible. The blue puck is like a rubber ball bouncing all over the ice. Elliot maybe the rest of the states use a different blue and black puck than we use.

[O-townClown]

These people that are doing these studies do not coach pee-wees.

Actually, MacInnis and Milbury do. They don't conduct the studies, but they are the sounding board.

[O-townClown]

Elliot maybe the rest of the states use a different blue and black puck than we use.

Not yet, but I have heard USA Hockey was trying to develop a lighter puck that didn't bounce as much. (All the while claiming the blue one doesn't bounce.)

[The Huge Hook]

Maybe they're all wrong and I'm stupid to support it.

Don't you dare keep tempting me like this

[WB6162]

God forbid the kids advance because of skating and passing and shooting skills. Too many clowns want their kids to bully their way into being noticed. This is a damn good rule and I look for Bantam checking to be severely curtailed very soon as well.