No Checking in PeeWee Talk by Dr. Michael Stuart

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

As someone who has argued against eliminating body checking at the PeeWee level, I have been very interested in hearing the reasons for the proposed change. In an email that I received from MN hockey today, there is links to presentations by Dr. Michael Stuart. He is a Mayo Clinic orthopedic surgeon who has been involved in hockey forever. He is someone that I respect without reservation. He was on a panel who considered this subject in 1993 and he was opposed to eliminating checking in PeeWee's then, but has changed his mind for reasons expressed in the talk (not till after the 10th minute does he get to this stuff btw)

I hope everyone interested in the subject will listen to it. I am still digesting it and trying to factor somethings into my position on the subject. He states unequivocally that studies have shown that players 12 or younger are 3 times more likely to get concussions than bantam players, for medical reasons, not hockey reasons. This is important to consider and should not be rationalized away lightly.

He acknowledges that in PeeWee's the primary danger comes from "unsuspecting, open ice body checks, especially if they are illegal." He cites medical folks who assert that players under 12 are not cognitively able to adequately protect themselves with all the different aspect of hockey taking place in a game, and finally seems to cite his opinion that kids are just not capable of having body contact allowed at PeeWee's without the bad stuff seeping in from primarily illegal hits.

This is summation and my paraphrasing... please check it out at the link below for yourself.

Something for us opponents to carefully think about.

One thing that jumps out at me is the 12 year old age... if the proposal is 12 and younger... well half of our PeeWee age are older than that... will this change, if it happens, cause our ages to change?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j6K90Hv97c

[muckandgrind]

As someone who has argued against eliminating body checking at the PeeWee level, I have been very interested in hearing the reasons for the proposed change. In an email that I received from MN hockey today, there is links to presentations by Dr. Michael Stuart. He is a Mayo Clinic orthopedic surgeon who has been involved in hockey forever. He is someone that I respect without reservation. He was on a panel who considered this subject in 1993 and he was opposed to eliminating checking in PeeWee's then, but has changed his mind for reasons expressed in the talk (not till after the 10th minute does he get to this stuff btw)

I hope everyone interested in the subject will listen to it. I am still digesting it and trying to factor somethings into my position on the subject. He states unequivocally that studies have shown that players 12 or younger are 3 times more likely to get concussions than bantam players, for medical reasons, not hockey reasons. This is important to consider and should not be rationalized away lightly.

He acknowledges that in PeeWee's the primary danger comes from "unsuspecting, open ice body checks, especially if they are illegal." He cites medical folks who assert that players under 12 are not cognitively able to adequately protect themselves with all the different aspect of hockey taking place in a game, and finally seems to cite his opinion that kids are just not capable of having body contact allowed at PeeWee's without the bad stuff seeping in from primarily illegal hits.

This is summation and my paraphrasing... please check it out at the link below for yourself.

Something for us opponents to carefully think about.

One thing that jumps out at me is the 12 year old age... if the proposal is 12 and younger... well half of our PeeWee age are older than that... will this change, if it happens, cause our ages to change?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j6K90Hv97c

I'll have to review this myself....but it looks like again that the focus is on "illegal" checks. Again, how many injuries could be avoided if there were special emphasis on proper methods of checking by players/coaches and the enforcement by on-ice officials of those "illegal" hits that are already in the book?

Another thing.....is there any data that tells us how many checking-related injuries in hockey per x number of players? I know that the NCAA tracks that number and there are more concussion-related injuries in women's hockey (non-checking) than in men's hockey. Are there more checking-related injuries in hockey vs tackling-related injuries in football? Are there more head injuries in hockey vs basketball? Basically where does hockey rank among all youth sports in terms of game-related injuries?

And what's the goal? Is it to prevent injuries, or increase participation? If it's participation, are they certain that checking at PeeWees is one of the main reasons why kids drop the sport after PeeWees? If so, is there any data to back up that claim? What if they implement this change and find that the numbers don't change in terms of injuries and drop-outs? Will they admit their error and re-introduce checking back into PeeWees?

These are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered before they vote on this monumental rule change.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

I'll have to review this myself....but it looks like again that the focus is on "illegal" checks. Again, how many injuries could be avoided if there were special emphasis on proper methods of checking by players/coaches and the enforcement by on-ice officials of those "illegal" hits that are already in the book?

Another thing.....is there any data that tells us how many checking-related injuries in hockey per x number of players? I know that the NCAA tracks that number and there are more concussion-related injuries in women's hockey (non-checking) than in men's hockey. Are there more checking-related injuries in hockey vs tackling-related injuries in football? Are there more head injuries in hockey vs basketball? Basically where does hockey rank among all youth sports in terms of game-related injuries?

And what's the goal? Is it to prevent injuries, or increase participation? If it's participation, are they certain that checking at PeeWees is one of the main reasons why kids drop the sport after PeeWees? If so, is there any data to back up that claim? What if they implement this change and find that the numbers don't change in terms of injuries and drop-outs? Will they admit their error and re-introduce checking back into PeeWees?

These are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered before they vote on this monumental rule change.

Good post Mucker. I agree with your concerns. What has me pausing for a moment here to reconsider my position, is that if Dr. Stuart says that there are medical reasons to do this, I will consider it. Now that being said, I too think that there is not an epidemic at the PeeWee A level (what I know) but then again 75% of these kids are 13 and not part of the medical conclusions.

Much to discuss and think about.

[muckandgrind]

I'd also like to add that I am sensitive to the area of concussions. My oldest suffered a severe concussion when he played "A" Bantam a few years back. However, that was not due to a clean check, but a hard elbow to the head....which, by the way, was not called by the refs.

[Mite-dad]

I'll have to review this myself....but it looks like again that the focus is on "illegal" checks. Again, how many injuries could be avoided if there were special emphasis on proper methods of checking by players/coaches and the enforcement by on-ice officials of those "illegal" hits that are already in the book?

Another thing.....is there any data that tells us how many checking-related injuries in hockey per x number of players? I know that the NCAA tracks that number and there are more concussion-related injuries in women's hockey (non-checking) than in men's hockey. Are there more checking-related injuries in hockey vs tackling-related injuries in football? Are there more head injuries in hockey vs basketball? Basically where does hockey rank among all youth sports in terms of game-related injuries?

And what's the goal? Is it to prevent injuries, or increase participation? If it's participation, are they certain that checking at PeeWees is one of the main reasons why kids drop the sport after PeeWees? If so, is there any data to back up that claim? What if they implement this change and find that the numbers don't change in terms of injuries and drop-outs? Will they admit their error and re-introduce checking back into PeeWees?

These are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered before they vote on this monumental rule change.

Good post Mucker. I agree with your concerns. What has me pausing for a moment here to reconsider my position, is that if Dr. Stuart says that there are medical reasons to do this, I will consider it. Now that being said, I too think that there is not an epidemic at the PeeWee A level (what I know) but then again 75% of these kids are 13 and not part of the medical conclusions.

Much to discuss and think about.

I think you are wrong about the 75% 13 year olds. Our PW teams are made up of 11, 12 and 13 year olds.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Much to discuss and think about.

I think you are wrong about the 75% 13 year olds. Our PW teams are made up of 11, 12 and 13 year olds.[/quote]

Your PeeWee A teams? I didn't mention all PeeWee teams.

[O-townClown]

So if I'm reading this correctly, your stance went from 1000% (in Idol speak) against to at least conceding that there is a good point or two in the proposal.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

So if I'm reading this correctly, your stance went from 1000% (in Idol speak) against to at least conceding that there is a good point or two in the proposal.

I've been asking in my posts for medically supported reasons other than that too many kids get concussions... something supporting a change.

I'm not sure if I agree with Dr. Stuart's conclusions, but I'm going to consider them.

I still have a lot of questions... mostly what do you do with the elite level players who have obviously mastered skating and are ready for body conduct... the kids that Dr. Stuart does not appear to be talking about.

Lots of tough issues. Its not supposed to be easy!