canada articles on checking

[trippedovertheblueline]

couple of articles from Canada media about raising or not too the checking age, in the providences outside Quebec


i found the results of their poll surprising which can be linked from the middle of the page




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... k-age.html

[frederick61]

"USA Hockey's senior director of hockey development, Kevin McLaughlin, says in the past two years, every competitive Pee Wee hockey game with bodychecking that he's watched has been stopped at least once because of injury."

What foolishness.

[old goalie85]

I've watched alot of pee-wee games.[not as many as fred] This guy is full of sh.t!!!!!

[roundhead]

Wether you like to admit it or not, "Intimidation" as being used in the article is an Integral part of the game. It's part of ALL competitive sports. Change that AND YOU CHANGE THE GAME! I understand that not everyone is interested in an intimidating game, fine, there are other sports, or better yet, different levels of Hockey such as no-check Rec. Hockey that could be a better option. Why would you even consider changing the ENTIRE game for the masses who have ALREADY chosen to play in order to make it more "ECONOMICALLY MARKETABLE" to a potentially larger number. Let's be HONEST here, the base reasoning behind the ADM and proposed Bodychecking change is to "Develop" and retain a larger number to collect registration fees! Period. I'm all for anything to grow the organization, but quit screwing with the History and Legacy of the basic GAME. If you want to protect the kids, CALL THE DAMN PENALTIES AS ALREADY LISTED IN THE RULES! Introduce the A Squirt level and above to Contact and GET BACK to your "Teaching Body Contact" Coaching Education Program you started in the 80's... Yes folks, we've been down this road before, but unfortunately now the Organization is large enough, and ECONOMICALLY large enough to Jade people's vision!

[spin-o-rama]

Wether you like to admit it or not, "Intimidation" as being used in the article is an Integral part of the game. It's part of ALL competitive sports. Change that AND YOU CHANGE THE GAME! I understand that not everyone is interested in an intimidating game, fine, there are other sports, or better yet, different levels of Hockey such as no-check Rec. Hockey that could be a better option. Why would you even consider changing the ENTIRE game for the masses who have ALREADY chosen to play in order to make it more "ECONOMICALLY MARKETABLE" to a potentially larger number. Let's be HONEST here, the base reasoning behind the ADM and proposed Bodychecking change is to "Develop" and retain a larger number to collect registration fees! Period. I'm all for anything to grow the organization, but quit screwing with the History and Legacy of the basic GAME. If you want to protect the kids, CALL THE DAMN PENALTIES AS ALREADY LISTED IN THE RULES! Introduce the A Squirt level and above to Contact and GET BACK to your "Teaching Body Contact" Coaching Education Program you started in the 80's... Yes folks, we've been down this road before, but unfortunately now the Organization is large enough, and ECONOMICALLY large enough to Jade people's vision!

Intimidation is an integral part of the game? You won't have to look far in the rule book for that answer. It's in the preface.

Intimidation or “bullying” has no place in ice hockey. Any act
that includes taunting or teasing of players, coaches, officials, or
spectators by means of verbal ridicule, obscene gesture, threat of
physical violence, or physical violence itself will not be tolerated at
USA Hockey events.

I agree that a simple rededication to the rulebook would clean up a lot of the garbage in the game.

[roundhead]

Wether you like to admit it or not, "Intimidation" as being used in the article is an Integral part of the game. It's part of ALL competitive sports. Change that AND YOU CHANGE THE GAME! I understand that not everyone is interested in an intimidating game, fine, there are other sports, or better yet, different levels of Hockey such as no-check Rec. Hockey that could be a better option. Why would you even consider changing the ENTIRE game for the masses who have ALREADY chosen to play in order to make it more "ECONOMICALLY MARKETABLE" to a potentially larger number. Let's be HONEST here, the base reasoning behind the ADM and proposed Bodychecking change is to "Develop" and retain a larger number to collect registration fees! Period. I'm all for anything to grow the organization, but quit screwing with the History and Legacy of the basic GAME. If you want to protect the kids, CALL THE DAMN PENALTIES AS ALREADY LISTED IN THE RULES! Introduce the A Squirt level and above to Contact and GET BACK to your "Teaching Body Contact" Coaching Education Program you started in the 80's... Yes folks, we've been down this road before, but unfortunately now the Organization is large enough, and ECONOMICALLY large enough to Jade people's vision!

Intimidation is an integral part of the game? You won't have to look far in the rule book for that answer. It's in the preface.

Intimidation or “bullying” has no place in ice hockey. Any act
that includes taunting or teasing of players, coaches, officials, or
spectators by means of verbal ridicule, obscene gesture, threat of
physical violence, or physical violence itself will not be tolerated at
USA Hockey events.

I agree that a simple rededication to the rulebook would clean up a lot of the garbage in the game.

"Wether you LIKE to ADMIT it or not..." Also, I don't consider Intimidating and "Bullying" to be the same thing, but I understand they lumped the two terms together. I would consider an act of intimidation to be Showing up to the game in order, dressed professionaly, warm-up as a team, take the ice in a certain organized manner, structured, efficient, and pro-ficient on-ice warmups, etc... to all be intimidating... The intimidating "Show" that I've done my homework, have prepared myself, know the game, and likely how to play the Body, IS intimidating. Remove checking and it changes THE GAME, and will throw a "Safety Blanket" over kids and someone's going to get caught off-guard. I watched the Russian National team arrive to play the Gophers once, and even though I wasnt' playing, just watching them walk to the Lockerroom WAS intimidating. Watching them warmup, WAS intimidating, knowing that they were well versed in the game, and on checking WAS intimidating. All that junk, and I do mean JUNK, that's listed in the preface, to me at least, is Bullying. And yes, that still happens in Competitive games, and could be curtailed by the proper Officiating.
There's no easy answer here to any of these questions, but I do believe that moving the body contact back will eventually hurt more kids. There's talk of eliminating the Checking, but allowing more body contact?... Good luck Officiating that! Now I understand the 1:30 penalty change... The PeeWee age is when you typically tend to see the growth spurts, and likewise the later bloomers playing on the same surface. Moving the body contact further back is NOT the answer in my opinion, but rather only delaying the reaction to when these kids are even stronger and able to do even more damage. Teach them properly, younger, AND ENFORCE THE CURRENT GAME AND RULES. JMO.

[JSR]

Wether you like to admit it or not, "Intimidation" as being used in the article is an Integral part of the game. It's part of ALL competitive sports. Change that AND YOU CHANGE THE GAME! I understand that not everyone is interested in an intimidating game, fine, there are other sports, or better yet, different levels of Hockey such as no-check Rec. Hockey that could be a better option. Why would you even consider changing the ENTIRE game for the masses who have ALREADY chosen to play in order to make it more "ECONOMICALLY MARKETABLE" to a potentially larger number. Let's be HONEST here, the base reasoning behind the ADM and proposed Bodychecking change is to "Develop" and retain a larger number to collect registration fees! Period. I'm all for anything to grow the organization, but quit screwing with the History and Legacy of the basic GAME. If you want to protect the kids, CALL THE DAMN PENALTIES AS ALREADY LISTED IN THE RULES! Introduce the A Squirt level and above to Contact and GET BACK to your "Teaching Body Contact" Coaching Education Program you started in the 80's... Yes folks, we've been down this road before, but unfortunately now the Organization is large enough, and ECONOMICALLY large enough to Jade people's vision!

Intimidation is an integral part of the game? You won't have to look far in the rule book for that answer. It's in the preface.

Intimidation or “bullying” has no place in ice hockey. Any act
that includes taunting or teasing of players, coaches, officials, or
spectators by means of verbal ridicule, obscene gesture, threat of
physical violence, or physical violence itself will not be tolerated at
USA Hockey events.

I agree that a simple rededication to the rulebook would clean up a lot of the garbage in the game.

"Wether you LIKE to ADMIT it or not..." Also, I don't consider Intimidating and "Bullying" to be the same thing, but I understand they lumped the two terms together. I would consider an act of intimidation to be Showing up to the game in order, dressed professionaly, warm-up as a team, take the ice in a certain organized manner, structured, efficient, and pro-ficient on-ice warmups, etc... to all be intimidating... The intimidating "Show" that I've done my homework, have prepared myself, know the game, and likely how to play the Body, IS intimidating. Remove checking and it changes THE GAME, and will throw a "Safety Blanket" over kids and someone's going to get caught off-guard. I watched the Russian National team arrive to play the Gophers once, and even though I wasnt' playing, just watching them walk to the Lockerroom WAS intimidating. Watching them warmup, WAS intimidating, knowing that they were well versed in the game, and on checking WAS intimidating. All that junk, and I do mean JUNK, that's listed in the preface, to me at least, is Bullying. And yes, that still happens in Competitive games, and could be curtailed by the proper Officiating.
There's no easy answer here to any of these questions, but I do believe that moving the body contact back will eventually hurt more kids. There's talk of eliminating the Checking, but allowing more body contact?... Good luck Officiating that! Now I understand the 1:30 penalty change... The PeeWee age is when you typically tend to see the growth spurts, and likewise the later bloomers playing on the same surface. Moving the body contact further back is NOT the answer in my opinion, but rather only delaying the reaction to when these kids are even stronger and able to do even more damage. Teach them properly, younger, AND ENFORCE THE CURRENT GAME AND RULES. JMO.

I agree that we need to teach the game properly, put more emphasis on teaching PROPER body contact, we need to deamphsize the "de-cleating" huge blow up hits that really serve no purpose and actualy take both players out of the play, we need to do a better job with refs in having them call the game and the rules better even if it means taking a conservative aqpproach to "iffy" hits, but I do think a few new rule changes need to be made. I think we need harsher penalties for hits to the head and "dangerous" cross checks and boarding plays and we need to have some sort of consequences to assocations whose teams have multiple major and game misconduct penalties. For instance maybe if your the team (or a number for the association as a whole too) has "X" number of major and/or misconduct penalties (usually arising from illegal hits) then your team is no longer eligible for district or state playoffs or something like that to really encourage proper teaching of the game at the association level. So I want them to keep the checking but changes do need to be made.

[InigoMontoya]

I'm hard-pressed to agree that increasing the penalty will get refs to make the calls more often. Checking from behind is already downgraded to crosschecking in most instances.

[JSR]

I'm hard-pressed to agree that increasing the penalty will get refs to make the calls more often. Checking from behind is already downgraded to crosschecking in most instances.

Hence the other reference for the need to get refs to call the game by the rules or even more conservatively in some instances rather than more leniently

[frederick61]

In the last 10 years or so, play at the peewee has gotten more skilled and faster. Ten years ago, poorer peewee A teams often had players who lacked basic skating skills, had difficulty turning, and were always chasing the play. Not so today. Kids at the peewee A level in Minnesota all can skate and have the basics down. The result is the play is much faster. The puck moves faster.

Most of the injuries that I have seen in the past few years are usually caused by kids losing their edges at these higher speeds and crashing into the boards or the net or the goalie. Often the lost edge is caused by an opposing player. A number of kids have gone to getting the stick on a players skate and off quickly as if they are swinging at a puck (especially if they are beaten).

A few injuries can be attributed to physical checking. Usually those injuries are caused by a faster player being lunged at by a slower player as they are skating by.

As for refs, they are more the victims of kids who have become more savvy in taking falls and initiating contact. When a kid falls to the ice, a ref can no longer assume the kid is really hurt. The ref can't even assume the kid has been tripped. The kids take the falls to draw penalties. Such is the sophistication of the coaching and play.

By the way, this is what happens when you improve the overall skills of kids. If you really want to avoid injuries, slow the game down by weighting down the puck or allowing only wood sticks with no curves. But then why develop a kid's skills?

[observer]

Everyone's goal is to improve the game. It's evolved beautifully the last few years to become much more of a skill game with fewer violent hits and injuries.

There are three parties on the ice that need to work together to continue the positive evolution. Coaches, players and refs. Refs, take the mystery out of it. The refs need to skate to both benches prior to the game and spend one minute explaining to the coach, and players, the way you call things and what is expected of the players and coaches. That would have a huge impact as opposed to the silly, fake, adversarial relationship. If there's a call the ref can skate over and explain what they saw and reinforced in their pregame chat that they confirmed everyone heard and understood. Coaches should never yell at refs. It's incredibly immature, serves zero purpose and makes kids, and their parents, think it’s ok. It's not. Have you seen refs change calls after getting screamed at? Don't act like an idiot or he's likely to give you the next call too. Plus, as has been discussed, you cannot beat a superior opponent shorthanded so the goal is zero penalties. Remember, refs are in charge and can do whatever they want. So, zip it and get your, and your players, behavior in line.

Refs, just lay it out, get confirmation from the teams they heard you, and then call it as you like. But, be consistent. If there's barking skate over to the bench and ask what they missed from your pregame chat which you had already confirmed everyone heard and understood. Done. Change the dynamic into a partnership since that's what it is. This is the way we're going to do it today since we're all in this together.

[Intheslot]

Could someone please enlighten me and anyone else who is curious. It's been stated that this same situation happened in the 80's. Why did it fail then and why does USA hockey think it will work now. Thanks