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

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:15 pm

O-townClown wrote:
hockeyfan74 wrote: 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.)

What do you mean????

It already exists, it is the same as the big one only less diameter, weight and height.

My kid used it, my grandkid uses it. My cousin and I used it, years ago.

And they already have a black light weight foam type that is years ahead of their blue one.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:19 pm

The Huge Hook wrote:
O-townClown wrote: Maybe they're all wrong and I'm stupid to support it.
Don't you dare keep tempting me like this

Not saying they are wrong, but I have a letter from an Olympic hockey player that serves on the USAH youth council basically stating that the people that have put this together went into it with a preconceived idea.
He is asking that further study be done and by 'more qualified' and less biased people.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:24 pm

Light pucks are just like orange ones...WRONG.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:28 am

elliott70 wrote:Not saying they are wrong, but I have a letter from an Olympic hockey player that serves on the USAH youth council basically stating that the people that have put this together went into it with a preconceived idea.

He is asking that further study be done and by 'more qualified' and less biased people.

It sure feels like that. You posted rules and they are already labeled for recommendations to accept (or not). I think they know what they want to do and have built a case for it.