checking rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

Sorry about your wife.

If you don't disagree with the points then how can you still argue that players will develop skills under the no checking rules.

You said no one from USA Hockey said players don't develop in games and I quoted the Director of Player Development that said exactly that. You missed it the first time I posted it... :shock:

You continue to miss the point. Players don't develop skills in games they develop in practice (you agree with the latter but provide no justification at all for why they develop in games). And the other point that you miss which all points back to the issue of checking.....drum roll please :twisted: whether there is checking at pee wee or not the players will not develop unless they get proper skills training in practice. In your original post you said kids will develop their skills because of no checking in games. It is a well supported fact that this is not the case AT ALL.

Give what a chance? Why reinvent the wheel. There is nothing to discover that has not been discovered.

So I'll give you an opportunity to provide a list of reasons why players will develop during games other than the dangling argument. Go for it...
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SnowedIn wrote:Sorry about your wife.

If you don't disagree with the points then how can you still argue that players will develop skills under the no checking rules.

You said no one from USA Hockey said players don't develop in games and I quoted the Director of Player Development that said exactly that. You missed it the first time I posted it... :shock:

You continue to miss the point. Players don't develop skills in games they develop in practice (you agree with the latter but provide no justification at all for why they develop in games). And the other point that you miss which all points back to the issue of checking.....drum roll please :twisted: whether there is checking at pee wee or not the players will not develop unless they get proper skills training in practice. In your original post you said kids will develop their skills because of no checking in games. It is a well supported fact that this is not the case AT ALL.

Give what a chance? Why reinvent the wheel. There is nothing to discover that has not been discovered.

So I'll give you an opportunity to provide a list of reasons why players will develop during games other than the dangling argument. Go for it...
Check that----why they develop in games without checking
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:Sorry about your wife.

If you don't disagree with the points then how can you still argue that players will develop skills under the no checking rules.

You said no one from USA Hockey said players don't develop in games and I quoted the Director of Player Development that said exactly that. You missed it the first time I posted it... :shock:

You continue to miss the point. Players don't develop skills in games they develop in practice (you agree with the latter but provide no justification at all for why they develop in games). And the other point that you miss which all points back to the issue of checking.....drum roll please :twisted: whether there is checking at pee wee or not the players will not develop unless they get proper skills training in practice. In your original post you said kids will develop their skills because of no checking in games. It is a well supported fact that this is not the case AT ALL.

Give what a chance? Why reinvent the wheel. There is nothing to discover that has not been discovered.

So I'll give you an opportunity to provide a list of reasons why players will develop during games other than the dangling argument. Go for it...
Check that----why they develop in games without checking
We simply disagree that a game provides no opportunity for development, and I believe you take Mr Mclaughlin's statement out of context. Every moment on the ice provides the OPPORTUNITY for development. Proper practice provides more and different opportunities. So, assuming that we are not going to eliminate games, the body contact rules provide for more development opportunity than games previously did. I've stated the reasons I believe this at great length in previous posts, and I stand by my opinion.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SECoach wrote: We simply disagree that a game provides no opportunity for development, and I believe you take Mr Mclaughlin's statement out of context. Every moment on the ice provides the OPPORTUNITY for development. Proper practice provides more and different opportunities. So, assuming that we are not going to eliminate games, the body contact rules provide for more development opportunity than games previously did. I've stated the reasons I believe this at great length in previous posts, and I stand by my opinion.
I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote: We simply disagree that a game provides no opportunity for development, and I believe you take Mr Mclaughlin's statement out of context. Every moment on the ice provides the OPPORTUNITY for development. Proper practice provides more and different opportunities. So, assuming that we are not going to eliminate games, the body contact rules provide for more development opportunity than games previously did. I've stated the reasons I believe this at great length in previous posts, and I stand by my opinion.
I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
My statements have no teeth. Yours have false teeth. You continue to quote stats and make statements that support my position, but do nothing to support yours. If we are going to play games, increase the opportunity for development in those games. The new body contact rules provide that opportunity. What do you suppose Mr McLaughlin, USA Hockey Director of Player Development, position is on body contact at the pee wee level? The rule changes came out of his committee.
BBgunner
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:06 am

Post by BBgunner »

Point this debate will never end.

Point good can be found on both sides of the arguement

Point teaching proper body checking at any age is necessary and overlooked.

Point we all want to keep injuries out of the game

Point skill development per the ADM is the goal and Johnny ToeDrag or not kids are moving the puck more whether skating or passing at pee wees.

Point everyone on here is a passionate hockey parent, coach, or fan and should be respected and I appreciate both sides of everyones arguements thank you
MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote: We simply disagree that a game provides no opportunity for development, and I believe you take Mr Mclaughlin's statement out of context. Every moment on the ice provides the OPPORTUNITY for development. Proper practice provides more and different opportunities. So, assuming that we are not going to eliminate games, the body contact rules provide for more development opportunity than games previously did. I've stated the reasons I believe this at great length in previous posts, and I stand by my opinion.
I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
What do these three guys think is going on when they're not touching the puck for those 30 seconds? All the rest is a waste? A player is touching the puck for 30 seconds and backchecking, forechecking, passing, line changes, crashing the net, face offs, poke checking, screening, etc, etc, etc, etc. for the other 20 minutes and these guys are telling us only the 30 seconds matter? By comparing the two times it seems like some need to revamp their practice plans.

I enjoy some of Blatherwick's articles, but he either nails it.... or fails it

Little Patrick Kane played 300+ games a season at 12 - 14 years old. How good would he have been if he played 50?

All hail MN Hockey! :wink:
C-dad
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:47 pm

Post by C-dad »

MrBoDangles wrote: What do these three guys think is going on when they're not touching the puck for those 30 seconds? All the rest is a waste? A player is touching the puck for 30 seconds and backchecking, forechecking, passing, line changes, crashing the net, face offs, poke checking, screening, etc, etc, etc, etc. for the other 20 minutes and these guys are telling us only the 30 seconds matter? By comparing the two times it seems like some need to revamp their practice plans.

I enjoy some of Blatherwick's articles, but he either nails it.... or fails it

Little Patrick Kane played 300+ games a season at 12 - 14 years old. How good would he have been if he played 50?

All hail MN Hockey! :wink:
I dunno, let's ask the Russian U-20 team who just beat Canada in Canada. :wink:
MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles »

C-dad wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote: What do these three guys think is going on when they're not touching the puck for those 30 seconds? All the rest is a waste? A player is touching the puck for 30 seconds and backchecking, forechecking, passing, line changes, crashing the net, face offs, poke checking, screening, etc, etc, etc, etc. for the other 20 minutes and these guys are telling us only the 30 seconds matter? By comparing the two times it seems like some need to revamp their practice plans.

I enjoy some of Blatherwick's articles, but he either nails it.... or fails it

Little Patrick Kane played 300+ games a season at 12 - 14 years old. How good would he have been if he played 50?

All hail MN Hockey! :wink:
I dunno, let's ask the Russian U-20 team who just beat Canada in Canada. :wink:
When will Minnesota develop a prolific scorer? Will there ever be one from Edina when MN Hockey has game limits? Patrick Kane would of been another decent player inside MN's borders at say....... Edina.

Think what you will, folks.. :?
old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 »

That's the first time Russia has won iv 6 or 7 years.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote: We simply disagree that a game provides no opportunity for development, and I believe you take Mr Mclaughlin's statement out of context. Every moment on the ice provides the OPPORTUNITY for development. Proper practice provides more and different opportunities. So, assuming that we are not going to eliminate games, the body contact rules provide for more development opportunity than games previously did. I've stated the reasons I believe this at great length in previous posts, and I stand by my opinion.
I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
My statements have no teeth. Yours have false teeth. You continue to quote stats and make statements that support my position, but do nothing to support yours. If we are going to play games, increase the opportunity for development in those games. The new body contact rules provide that opportunity. What do you suppose Mr McLaughlin, USA Hockey Director of Player Development, position is on body contact at the pee wee level? The rule changes came out of his committee.

MY POSITION is that players do not develop "skills" in games so what difference does it make if there is no checking or checking - keep the checking in.

YOUR POSITION is that players will develop more in games without checking.

Stats/statements I provided:
-6 passes a game/30-60 seconds puckhandling in a game (supports my position - Doesn't support your position. Eliminating checking will not increase these stats)
-Russians are proven to develop skilled players and most do not play games until 12 or later (supports my position - Does't support yours)
-Quoted 4 guys that said you don't develop skills in games (supports my position - doesn't support yours.)
-Skills are taught/learned/mastered in practice not in games (supports my position as games do very little to develop skills so eliminating checking has no impact either way - doesn't support your position that eliminating checking increases skill development in games).

*********Please address the court and tell the jury how any of these points supports your position that kids will develop more in games without checking.

And yes Mr M contradicts himself if he supports the checking ban because it will increase skill development for PWs. Just like you are contradicting yourself if you say my statements support your position - because my statements say that you don't develop skills in games.

BoD - I have no problem with thinking what he wants but I can't get passed the completely illogical/contradictory statements.

I should have stopped 3 posts ago after the first irrational response
MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote: I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
My statements have no teeth. Yours have false teeth. You continue to quote stats and make statements that support my position, but do nothing to support yours. If we are going to play games, increase the opportunity for development in those games. The new body contact rules provide that opportunity. What do you suppose Mr McLaughlin, USA Hockey Director of Player Development, position is on body contact at the pee wee level? The rule changes came out of his committee.

MY POSITION is that players do not develop "skills" in games so what difference does it make if there is no checking or checking - keep the checking in.

YOUR POSITION is that players will develop more in games without checking.

Stats/statements I provided:
-6 passes a game/30-60 seconds puckhandling in a game (supports my position - Doesn't support your position. Eliminating checking will not increase these stats)
-Russians are proven to develop skilled players and most do not play games until 12 or later (supports my position - Does't support yours)
-Quoted 4 guys that said you don't develop skills in games (supports my position - doesn't support yours.)
-Skills are taught/learned/mastered in practice not in games (supports my position as games do very little to develop skills so eliminating checking has no impact either way - doesn't support your position that eliminating checking increases skill development in games).

*********Please address the court and tell the jury how any of these points supports your position that kids will develop more in games without checking.

And yes Mr M contradicts himself if he supports the checking ban because it will increase skill development for PWs. Just like you are contradicting yourself if you say my statements support your position - because my statements say that you don't develop skills in games.

BoD - I have no problem with thinking what he wants but I can't get passed the completely illogical/contradictory statements.

I should have stopped 3 posts ago after the first irrational response
What did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote: I really want to stop posting on this but you keep throwing those simplistic comments out. I did not take Mr M's statement out of context. His statement is one of dozens you'll find from experts around the world. I'll share a few more with you. In addition to this I've provided you with puck possession stats and training standards from Russia (which don't include games) and a bunch of other concrete reasons. You say you have provided reasons, but really haven't other than dangling opportunities. So you have an opinion with no teeth. I also stated that games do develop knowledge of the game, positioning, ice awareness but as far as core hockey skills, virtually nothing. Just a teeny, tiny bit. At 1.5 seconds a shift with the puck how the hell can you?

So without checking is the player really going to develop more skills? No.
Its a bad rule and will create bad habits at an age that kids should be blossoming into heads-up hockey players ready for the grind of Bantams and Midget Hockey where there is very little time and space and lots of body contact because of it.

Out of context...LOL

Here are some more quotes in addition to Director of Player Development at USA Hockey, Mr McLaughlin

John Shorey, author Hockey Made Easy 2009 - Playing hockey games does not improve your skills; practices do, and winning or losing a game is based on what you learned and perfected at your practices.

Randy Jordan - But hockey experts will emphatically state that in a normal game at any level a player is lucky to handle the puck for more than thirty seconds in the whole game. The amount of playing time (much of it gliding without the puck) may only be 10-12 minutes. The player touches the puck maybe 5 to 10 times if lucky and on a good day releases 3 to 4 shots. It is important to note that for any skill to be mastered it must be practiced thousands and thousands of times....PERFECTLY!

Jack Blatherwick - When you consider how few reps are possible in a game: maybe three shots, two opportunities to stickhandle for a couple of seconds, and three full-speed sprints of 1.5 seconds...If your interest is in the development of young hockey players, try this comparison: watch Brian Rolston or Alex Ovechkin fly around the ice with the puck - then go to a youth hockey game and observe the bench for a few seconds. Ask yourself if there's a chance those kids sitting there for three shifts can possibly develop into superstars.
My statements have no teeth. Yours have false teeth. You continue to quote stats and make statements that support my position, but do nothing to support yours. If we are going to play games, increase the opportunity for development in those games. The new body contact rules provide that opportunity. What do you suppose Mr McLaughlin, USA Hockey Director of Player Development, position is on body contact at the pee wee level? The rule changes came out of his committee.

MY POSITION is that players do not develop "skills" in games so what difference does it make if there is no checking or checking - keep the checking in.

YOUR POSITION is that players will develop more in games without checking.

Stats/statements I provided:
-6 passes a game/30-60 seconds puckhandling in a game (supports my position - Doesn't support your position. Eliminating checking will not increase these stats) I BELIEVE IT WILL
-Russians are proven to develop skilled players and most do not play games until 12 or later (supports my position - Does't support yours) RUSSIAN TRAINING AT THIS AGE, WHILE DONE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF ORGANIZED GAMES, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHECKING, BUT THE TEACHING AND USE OF PROPER BODY CONTACT SKILLS -Quoted 4 guys that said you don't develop skills in games (supports my position - doesn't support yours.) ALL ARE MAKING THE POINT IN AN EFFORT TO LIMIT ORGANIZED GAMES FROM BECOMING ALL WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU ARE TAKING THEIR STATEMENTS AND APPLYING THEM TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC OUT OF CONTEXT-Skills are taught/learned/mastered in practice not in games (supports my position as games do very little to develop skills so eliminating checking has no impact either way - doesn't support your position that eliminating checking increases skill development in games). YOU SAY VERY LITTLE TO DEVELOP SKILLS IN GAMES. REVISED BODY CONTACT RULES WILL PROVIDE MORE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE GAMES THAT THE CHILDREN WILL INEVITABLY PLAY.
*********Please address the court and tell the jury how any of these points supports your position that kids will develop more in games without checking.

And yes Mr M contradicts himself if he supports the checking ban because it will increase skill development for PWs. Just like you are contradicting yourself if you say my statements support your position - because my statements say that you don't develop skills in games.

BoD - I have no problem with thinking what he wants but I can't get passed the completely illogical/contradictory statements.

I should have stopped 3 posts ago after the first irrational response
I have submitted my brief above, your honor.

I disagree that no development can occur in a game. I feel that the revised body contact rules enhance the opportunities for development. USA Hockey, and the USA Hockey Player Development Committee agree, regardless of what obscure quote from the past you can find. This is why the rules were changed. I feel your statements, while in and of themselves have much merit, do not support your position on body contact at the pee wee level.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

[quote="MrBoDanglesWhat did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?[/quote]

Easy there son. Common sense would have told you I was responding to your post "Think what you will folks" and that my comments were directed at SE.

Hitler fan? Nope
Follower? Nope
Book smart? Thanks, maybe I am. I am also a long time coach with a lot of experience on the subject. I posted all of that stuff because who wants to hear it from me? It's well documented and that's much heavier than an opinion. I have seen many coaches (way too many) that ignore fundamental skill training in favor of positioning and strategy and see the severe lack of development of the kids they are supposed to be preparing for the "next level". I have also seen the opposite and what the talent they crank out. Its all common sense too me. Its also common sense that skills aren't developed in games. Games are great and the ultimate ends to the training. Take a highly skilled player and you can teach them the game and they will be dominant. Take a non skilled player that receives no skills training but plays games every day and knows the game and they will be a non factor. Playing games every day will not make you a great player if you don't get the training. Common sense.
MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.
SECoach: Didn't re-read all of the posts from the last few days but don't remember anyone saying anything about scaredy cats??? Nor have I read anyone thumping their chests about how hockey is a tough guy's sport. Checking is a huge part of the game. Checking is the ultimate form of puck separation and the "good" coaches teach it that way. Eliminating the BS head hunting that goes on with stiffer penalties will go a long way to force coaches and players to stop that activity.

The skill aspect of the game has been evolving ever since the Europeans started coming over in bigger numbers in the later 80's and 90's. Hockey has already evolved skillwise in a big way and will continue to. The Europeans have brought more skill and forced players in North America to catch up and you see many more highly skilled players here in NA versus the past. At the same time The Europeans have increased their physical play to keep up with that aspect of the game. They have evolved as well.

I think the game is better than ever. Its highly skilled and highly physical. Since the interference rules started to be enforced the glutching and grabbing and hooking.... has all but gone away making the game even better.

BUT checking has not gone away and it won't and it is a huge part of them game. Skilled players can check great and avoid checks because they have great edges and see the ice "because of their skills", not because they didn't have checking at Pee Wee.

Once again, players do not develop their skills in games. The evidence is unrefutable. They develop the "finer points" as you say, or the "essential points" as I say, in practice if the coaches run efffective skills practices. You make it sound like the posters don't care about skills. Read my posts again. And last time I checked, coaches don't send kids out to crush a kid during a stickhandling drill. It's the same forum that can be used for non check small area games to allow the kids to develop their skills, in addition to checking small area games. This is where the skill development has to happen both with and without checking.
SECoach wrote: The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school).
The bad news is that if anyone believes that banning checking is the fix for skill development you will not see any improvement in the game. The majority of kids will continue to be B or C players, with many B players playing A or highschool because there aren't enough A players to field the teams. Attend an international coaching clinic, or even a USA Hockey coaching clinic and you will see what the rest of the world is doing to improve skills. Its in the way they practice! You cannot develop holding the puck for 1.5 seconds a shift and making 6 passes a game.

SECoach - you like to refer to the Europeans and how "they do it". I do too! They are not more skilled because of checking or no checking because they don't develop the kids in games. Some don't even play "real" games until they are Pee Wees or later. They do it with "great coaching" that understands and incorporates the skill development into every practice. Its about the practice, not the games.

Sorry to do this to everyone but here are some more quotes.

Quote: "It is common knowledge that the Russians have a 6 to 1 practice to game ratio....and actually do not play serious games until they are twelve years old. Skills and creative, non-threatening scrimmage is a focus...interesting to note that about one half of each session was spent on blue line 3 on 3 games, full of moves and plays we would never allow a 7 year old Mite try to perform in a league game"

Some bullets from a study published by Al Bloomer and Mark Tabrum of USA Hockey after visiting Russia in 2008:

Russia Coaching Program:
The Russian coaching education system is extensive and demanding.
• All coaches must go through a rigorous educational process. They must first obtain a sports degree from an accredited university. After receiving this degree, coaches spend a year attaining a coaching degree specific to the sport they are coaching. Coaches spend time in the classroom and are given practical experience by coaching with two separate teams during this year of hockey-specific training. This theory and practical experience totals 500 hours. Most Russian coaches are former players. Coaches are required to have skating ability and goaltender coaches receive additional specialized training.
• The top/best coaches teach at the entry levels (6, 7 & 8 year olds).
• In some clubs a coach will move vertically through the system with the same birth year. In other clubs the coaches will stay at the same birth year level for up to 10 years.
• Coaches within the club work together. The program is designed for vertical development – moving players to the next level within the club. Standardized curriculum/philosophy allows for smooth transition and players are prepared for the next level. The primary objective is to prepare players for the parent professional club team.
• Players practice on ice a minimum of five times per week. Each practice lasts from 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, players from age 8-12 will have three off ice training sessions per week. Older players will have five off ice training sessions per week. At about age 12-14, weights are added to the off ice training program. Off ice training is very important in Russian hockey.
• The primary objective of each program is to develop players for the parent professional team. A secondary objective is to develop players for the national teams. Winning at the older ages (16 and older) is considered but is not a primary objective. A 17-year-old is eligible to play in the top professional league.
• The practices we observed for the 5-8 year-olds worked on fundamental skills. Specific drills, requiring multiple skills, were run for long periods of time (15 to 30 minutes) and emphasized repetition. The overall pace was moderate. The coach gave verbal instruction and occasionally stopped practice for demonstration. We saw practices at this level where a player had a puck on his stick for the entire session. Puck possession and puck protection are high priorities in Russian hockey.
• Practices overall focus on the individual skills of the player not the team concept of North American hockey. One specific practice we observed had players skating around tires on one end of the rink. The other end had players stick-handling pucks through and around metal tri-pods. Players in the middle of the ice were put in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, and 1 vs 3 situations.
• Tactics and systems are not introduced in Russian hockey until age 14.

The Philosophical change with USA Hockey has a lot to do with studies like this.

If our players were developing all along, we would be riddled with skilled players that play heads up hockey and checking would be a non issue. This thread would not need to exist.

Most skilled players are developing outside of the team practice because most team practices do not develop skills. The good thing here in our great state is that there are a good number of local options for skill development for those players that want to excel in their skills. Make no mistake that most of the top players in your association attend those options during the season and/or off season.

Until coaches see the light and start to follow the lead of the best practices we will continue to be behind the curve. CHECKING OR NO CHECKING.
Your second paragraph = contradiction

Do I even need to explain it to you?
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote: My statements have no teeth. Yours have false teeth. You continue to quote stats and make statements that support my position, but do nothing to support yours. If we are going to play games, increase the opportunity for development in those games. The new body contact rules provide that opportunity. What do you suppose Mr McLaughlin, USA Hockey Director of Player Development, position is on body contact at the pee wee level? The rule changes came out of his committee.

MY POSITION is that players do not develop "skills" in games so what difference does it make if there is no checking or checking - keep the checking in.

YOUR POSITION is that players will develop more in games without checking.

Stats/statements I provided:
-6 passes a game/30-60 seconds puckhandling in a game (supports my position - Doesn't support your position. Eliminating checking will not increase these stats) I BELIEVE IT WILL
-Russians are proven to develop skilled players and most do not play games until 12 or later (supports my position - Does't support yours) RUSSIAN TRAINING AT THIS AGE, WHILE DONE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF ORGANIZED GAMES, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHECKING, BUT THE TEACHING AND USE OF PROPER BODY CONTACT SKILLS -Quoted 4 guys that said you don't develop skills in games (supports my position - doesn't support yours.) ALL ARE MAKING THE POINT IN AN EFFORT TO LIMIT ORGANIZED GAMES FROM BECOMING ALL WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU ARE TAKING THEIR STATEMENTS AND APPLYING THEM TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC OUT OF CONTEXT-Skills are taught/learned/mastered in practice not in games (supports my position as games do very little to develop skills so eliminating checking has no impact either way - doesn't support your position that eliminating checking increases skill development in games). YOU SAY VERY LITTLE TO DEVELOP SKILLS IN GAMES. REVISED BODY CONTACT RULES WILL PROVIDE MORE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE GAMES THAT THE CHILDREN WILL INEVITABLY PLAY.
*********Please address the court and tell the jury how any of these points supports your position that kids will develop more in games without checking.

And yes Mr M contradicts himself if he supports the checking ban because it will increase skill development for PWs. Just like you are contradicting yourself if you say my statements support your position - because my statements say that you don't develop skills in games.

BoD - I have no problem with thinking what he wants but I can't get passed the completely illogical/contradictory statements.

I should have stopped 3 posts ago after the first irrational response
I have submitted my brief above, your honor.

I disagree that no development can occur in a game. I feel that the revised body contact rules enhance the opportunities for development. USA Hockey, and the USA Hockey Player Development Committee agree, regardless of what obscure quote from the past you can find. This is why the rules were changed. I feel your statements, while in and of themselves have much merit, do not support your position on body contact at the pee wee level.

Obscure? In the past? Thanks for another irrational comment.
The game stats and quotes about games not developing skills apply to all levels (mite to NHL) and checking and non checking.

You BELIEVE it will. Okay.
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:[quote="MrBoDanglesWhat did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?
Easy there son. Common sense would have told you I was responding to your post "Think what you will folks" and that my comments were directed at SE.

Hitler fan? Nope
Follower? Nope
Book smart? Thanks, maybe I am. I am also a long time coach with a lot of experience on the subject. I posted all of that stuff because who wants to hear it from me? It's well documented and that's much heavier than an opinion. I have seen many coaches (way too many) that ignore fundamental skill training in favor of positioning and strategy and see the severe lack of development of the kids they are supposed to be preparing for the "next level". I have also seen the opposite and what the talent they crank out. Its all common sense too me. Its also common sense that skills aren't developed in games. Games are great and the ultimate ends to the training. Take a highly skilled player and you can teach them the game and they will be dominant. Take a non skilled player that receives no skills training but plays games every day and knows the game and they will be a non factor. Playing games every day will not make you a great player if you don't get the training. Common sense.
[/quote]
Even with all the varied opinions on this board, I have found no one that advocates playing games everyday without effective practices.

Again, you use statements and facts that while true, do nothing to support your arguement on the body contact discussion. I spend countless hours advocating the points you make. They just don't apply here as you would like them to.
Last edited by SECoach on Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles »

SnowedIn wrote:[quote="MrBoDanglesWhat did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?
Easy there son. Common sense would have told you I was responding to your post "Think what you will folks" and that my comments were directed at SE.

Hitler fan? Nope
Follower? Nope
Book smart? Thanks, maybe I am. I am also a long time coach with a lot of experience on the subject. I posted all of that stuff because who wants to hear it from me? It's well documented and that's much heavier than an opinion. I have seen many coaches (way too many) that ignore fundamental skill training in favor of positioning and strategy and see the severe lack of development of the kids they are supposed to be preparing for the "next level". I have also seen the opposite and what the talent they crank out. Its all common sense too me. Its also common sense that skills aren't developed in games. Games are great and the ultimate ends to the training. Take a highly skilled player and you can teach them the game and they will be dominant. Take a non skilled player that receives no skills training but plays games every day and knows the game and they will be a non factor. Playing games every day will not make you a great player if you don't get the training. Common sense.[/quote]
I'll bet on a kid playing shinny, or a game, over a kid waiting in line at practice, or a talking coach, any day.

THOUSANDS of game scenarios are crucial!

We'll have to agree to disagree.. :wink:
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
MY POSITION is that players do not develop "skills" in games so what difference does it make if there is no checking or checking - keep the checking in.

YOUR POSITION is that players will develop more in games without checking.

Stats/statements I provided:
-6 passes a game/30-60 seconds puckhandling in a game (supports my position - Doesn't support your position. Eliminating checking will not increase these stats) I BELIEVE IT WILL
-Russians are proven to develop skilled players and most do not play games until 12 or later (supports my position - Does't support yours) RUSSIAN TRAINING AT THIS AGE, WHILE DONE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF ORGANIZED GAMES, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHECKING, BUT THE TEACHING AND USE OF PROPER BODY CONTACT SKILLS -Quoted 4 guys that said you don't develop skills in games (supports my position - doesn't support yours.) ALL ARE MAKING THE POINT IN AN EFFORT TO LIMIT ORGANIZED GAMES FROM BECOMING ALL WE DO IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU ARE TAKING THEIR STATEMENTS AND APPLYING THEM TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC OUT OF CONTEXT-Skills are taught/learned/mastered in practice not in games (supports my position as games do very little to develop skills so eliminating checking has no impact either way - doesn't support your position that eliminating checking increases skill development in games). YOU SAY VERY LITTLE TO DEVELOP SKILLS IN GAMES. REVISED BODY CONTACT RULES WILL PROVIDE MORE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE GAMES THAT THE CHILDREN WILL INEVITABLY PLAY.
*********Please address the court and tell the jury how any of these points supports your position that kids will develop more in games without checking.

And yes Mr M contradicts himself if he supports the checking ban because it will increase skill development for PWs. Just like you are contradicting yourself if you say my statements support your position - because my statements say that you don't develop skills in games.

BoD - I have no problem with thinking what he wants but I can't get passed the completely illogical/contradictory statements.

I should have stopped 3 posts ago after the first irrational response
I have submitted my brief above, your honor.

I disagree that no development can occur in a game. I feel that the revised body contact rules enhance the opportunities for development. USA Hockey, and the USA Hockey Player Development Committee agree, regardless of what obscure quote from the past you can find. This is why the rules were changed. I feel your statements, while in and of themselves have much merit, do not support your position on body contact at the pee wee level.

Obscure? In the past? Thanks for another irrational comment.
The game stats and quotes about games not developing skills apply to all levels (mite to NHL) and checking and non checking.

You BELIEVE it will. Okay.
I love that, while you quote people that support the new body contact rules, to support your position of changing them back, I'm the irrational one. Classic.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

MrBoDangles wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.
SECoach: Didn't re-read all of the posts from the last few days but don't remember anyone saying anything about scaredy cats??? Nor have I read anyone thumping their chests about how hockey is a tough guy's sport. Checking is a huge part of the game. Checking is the ultimate form of puck separation and the "good" coaches teach it that way. Eliminating the BS head hunting that goes on with stiffer penalties will go a long way to force coaches and players to stop that activity.

The skill aspect of the game has been evolving ever since the Europeans started coming over in bigger numbers in the later 80's and 90's. Hockey has already evolved skillwise in a big way and will continue to. The Europeans have brought more skill and forced players in North America to catch up and you see many more highly skilled players here in NA versus the past. At the same time The Europeans have increased their physical play to keep up with that aspect of the game. They have evolved as well.

I think the game is better than ever. Its highly skilled and highly physical. Since the interference rules started to be enforced the glutching and grabbing and hooking.... has all but gone away making the game even better.

BUT checking has not gone away and it won't and it is a huge part of them game. Skilled players can check great and avoid checks because they have great edges and see the ice "because of their skills", not because they didn't have checking at Pee Wee.

Once again, players do not develop their skills in games. The evidence is unrefutable. They develop the "finer points" as you say, or the "essential points" as I say, in practice if the coaches run efffective skills practices. You make it sound like the posters don't care about skills. Read my posts again. And last time I checked, coaches don't send kids out to crush a kid during a stickhandling drill. It's the same forum that can be used for non check small area games to allow the kids to develop their skills, in addition to checking small area games. This is where the skill development has to happen both with and without checking.
SECoach wrote: The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school).
The bad news is that if anyone believes that banning checking is the fix for skill development you will not see any improvement in the game. The majority of kids will continue to be B or C players, with many B players playing A or highschool because there aren't enough A players to field the teams. Attend an international coaching clinic, or even a USA Hockey coaching clinic and you will see what the rest of the world is doing to improve skills. Its in the way they practice! You cannot develop holding the puck for 1.5 seconds a shift and making 6 passes a game.

SECoach - you like to refer to the Europeans and how "they do it". I do too! They are not more skilled because of checking or no checking because they don't develop the kids in games. Some don't even play "real" games until they are Pee Wees or later. They do it with "great coaching" that understands and incorporates the skill development into every practice. Its about the practice, not the games.

Sorry to do this to everyone but here are some more quotes.

Quote: "It is common knowledge that the Russians have a 6 to 1 practice to game ratio....and actually do not play serious games until they are twelve years old. Skills and creative, non-threatening scrimmage is a focus...interesting to note that about one half of each session was spent on blue line 3 on 3 games, full of moves and plays we would never allow a 7 year old Mite try to perform in a league game"

Some bullets from a study published by Al Bloomer and Mark Tabrum of USA Hockey after visiting Russia in 2008:

Russia Coaching Program:
The Russian coaching education system is extensive and demanding.
• All coaches must go through a rigorous educational process. They must first obtain a sports degree from an accredited university. After receiving this degree, coaches spend a year attaining a coaching degree specific to the sport they are coaching. Coaches spend time in the classroom and are given practical experience by coaching with two separate teams during this year of hockey-specific training. This theory and practical experience totals 500 hours. Most Russian coaches are former players. Coaches are required to have skating ability and goaltender coaches receive additional specialized training.
• The top/best coaches teach at the entry levels (6, 7 & 8 year olds).
• In some clubs a coach will move vertically through the system with the same birth year. In other clubs the coaches will stay at the same birth year level for up to 10 years.
• Coaches within the club work together. The program is designed for vertical development – moving players to the next level within the club. Standardized curriculum/philosophy allows for smooth transition and players are prepared for the next level. The primary objective is to prepare players for the parent professional club team.
• Players practice on ice a minimum of five times per week. Each practice lasts from 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, players from age 8-12 will have three off ice training sessions per week. Older players will have five off ice training sessions per week. At about age 12-14, weights are added to the off ice training program. Off ice training is very important in Russian hockey.
• The primary objective of each program is to develop players for the parent professional team. A secondary objective is to develop players for the national teams. Winning at the older ages (16 and older) is considered but is not a primary objective. A 17-year-old is eligible to play in the top professional league.
• The practices we observed for the 5-8 year-olds worked on fundamental skills. Specific drills, requiring multiple skills, were run for long periods of time (15 to 30 minutes) and emphasized repetition. The overall pace was moderate. The coach gave verbal instruction and occasionally stopped practice for demonstration. We saw practices at this level where a player had a puck on his stick for the entire session. Puck possession and puck protection are high priorities in Russian hockey.
• Practices overall focus on the individual skills of the player not the team concept of North American hockey. One specific practice we observed had players skating around tires on one end of the rink. The other end had players stick-handling pucks through and around metal tri-pods. Players in the middle of the ice were put in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, and 1 vs 3 situations.
• Tactics and systems are not introduced in Russian hockey until age 14.

The Philosophical change with USA Hockey has a lot to do with studies like this.

If our players were developing all along, we would be riddled with skilled players that play heads up hockey and checking would be a non issue. This thread would not need to exist.

Most skilled players are developing outside of the team practice because most team practices do not develop skills. The good thing here in our great state is that there are a good number of local options for skill development for those players that want to excel in their skills. Make no mistake that most of the top players in your association attend those options during the season and/or off season.

Until coaches see the light and start to follow the lead of the best practices we will continue to be behind the curve. CHECKING OR NO CHECKING.
Your second paragraph = contradiction

Do I even need to explain it to you?
I'm hesitant to go there because of the lack of common sense you used in your last post. :oops: But humor me. Before you do know that the NA did not become more skilled because they played with the Europeans. They learned those skills in practice. They did NOT absorb the skills by being close to the more skilled players. Same with the physical play for the Euros. The games provided the media for learning what they needed to improve and they want back to practice to improve it. Again, the point is you develop in practice and use games to test how well you are doing.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SECoach wrote: I love that, while you quote people that support the new body contact rules, to support your position of changing them back, I'm the irrational one. Classic.
People? You mean Mr M?

Now you may want to consider that USA Hockey as a body made that decision to ban checking at PW for now. Consider that there were other reasons like keeping more kids in hockey. PW has been the biggest drop off.

Lastly, consider that Mr M, as a representative of USA Hockey, may have supported the decision for but not for the reason of development. He may have not supported the decision at all. Who knows. Ask him.
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:
SnowedIn wrote: SECoach: Didn't re-read all of the posts from the last few days but don't remember anyone saying anything about scaredy cats??? Nor have I read anyone thumping their chests about how hockey is a tough guy's sport. Checking is a huge part of the game. Checking is the ultimate form of puck separation and the "good" coaches teach it that way. Eliminating the BS head hunting that goes on with stiffer penalties will go a long way to force coaches and players to stop that activity.

The skill aspect of the game has been evolving ever since the Europeans started coming over in bigger numbers in the later 80's and 90's. Hockey has already evolved skillwise in a big way and will continue to. The Europeans have brought more skill and forced players in North America to catch up and you see many more highly skilled players here in NA versus the past. At the same time The Europeans have increased their physical play to keep up with that aspect of the game. They have evolved as well.

I think the game is better than ever. Its highly skilled and highly physical. Since the interference rules started to be enforced the glutching and grabbing and hooking.... has all but gone away making the game even better.

BUT checking has not gone away and it won't and it is a huge part of them game. Skilled players can check great and avoid checks because they have great edges and see the ice "because of their skills", not because they didn't have checking at Pee Wee.

Once again, players do not develop their skills in games. The evidence is unrefutable. They develop the "finer points" as you say, or the "essential points" as I say, in practice if the coaches run efffective skills practices. You make it sound like the posters don't care about skills. Read my posts again. And last time I checked, coaches don't send kids out to crush a kid during a stickhandling drill. It's the same forum that can be used for non check small area games to allow the kids to develop their skills, in addition to checking small area games. This is where the skill development has to happen both with and without checking.
The bad news is that if anyone believes that banning checking is the fix for skill development you will not see any improvement in the game. The majority of kids will continue to be B or C players, with many B players playing A or highschool because there aren't enough A players to field the teams. Attend an international coaching clinic, or even a USA Hockey coaching clinic and you will see what the rest of the world is doing to improve skills. Its in the way they practice! You cannot develop holding the puck for 1.5 seconds a shift and making 6 passes a game.

SECoach - you like to refer to the Europeans and how "they do it". I do too! They are not more skilled because of checking or no checking because they don't develop the kids in games. Some don't even play "real" games until they are Pee Wees or later. They do it with "great coaching" that understands and incorporates the skill development into every practice. Its about the practice, not the games.

Sorry to do this to everyone but here are some more quotes.

Quote: "It is common knowledge that the Russians have a 6 to 1 practice to game ratio....and actually do not play serious games until they are twelve years old. Skills and creative, non-threatening scrimmage is a focus...interesting to note that about one half of each session was spent on blue line 3 on 3 games, full of moves and plays we would never allow a 7 year old Mite try to perform in a league game"

Some bullets from a study published by Al Bloomer and Mark Tabrum of USA Hockey after visiting Russia in 2008:

Russia Coaching Program:
The Russian coaching education system is extensive and demanding.
• All coaches must go through a rigorous educational process. They must first obtain a sports degree from an accredited university. After receiving this degree, coaches spend a year attaining a coaching degree specific to the sport they are coaching. Coaches spend time in the classroom and are given practical experience by coaching with two separate teams during this year of hockey-specific training. This theory and practical experience totals 500 hours. Most Russian coaches are former players. Coaches are required to have skating ability and goaltender coaches receive additional specialized training.
• The top/best coaches teach at the entry levels (6, 7 & 8 year olds).
• In some clubs a coach will move vertically through the system with the same birth year. In other clubs the coaches will stay at the same birth year level for up to 10 years.
• Coaches within the club work together. The program is designed for vertical development – moving players to the next level within the club. Standardized curriculum/philosophy allows for smooth transition and players are prepared for the next level. The primary objective is to prepare players for the parent professional club team.
• Players practice on ice a minimum of five times per week. Each practice lasts from 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, players from age 8-12 will have three off ice training sessions per week. Older players will have five off ice training sessions per week. At about age 12-14, weights are added to the off ice training program. Off ice training is very important in Russian hockey.
• The primary objective of each program is to develop players for the parent professional team. A secondary objective is to develop players for the national teams. Winning at the older ages (16 and older) is considered but is not a primary objective. A 17-year-old is eligible to play in the top professional league.
• The practices we observed for the 5-8 year-olds worked on fundamental skills. Specific drills, requiring multiple skills, were run for long periods of time (15 to 30 minutes) and emphasized repetition. The overall pace was moderate. The coach gave verbal instruction and occasionally stopped practice for demonstration. We saw practices at this level where a player had a puck on his stick for the entire session. Puck possession and puck protection are high priorities in Russian hockey.
• Practices overall focus on the individual skills of the player not the team concept of North American hockey. One specific practice we observed had players skating around tires on one end of the rink. The other end had players stick-handling pucks through and around metal tri-pods. Players in the middle of the ice were put in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, and 1 vs 3 situations.
• Tactics and systems are not introduced in Russian hockey until age 14.

The Philosophical change with USA Hockey has a lot to do with studies like this.

If our players were developing all along, we would be riddled with skilled players that play heads up hockey and checking would be a non issue. This thread would not need to exist.

Most skilled players are developing outside of the team practice because most team practices do not develop skills. The good thing here in our great state is that there are a good number of local options for skill development for those players that want to excel in their skills. Make no mistake that most of the top players in your association attend those options during the season and/or off season.

Until coaches see the light and start to follow the lead of the best practices we will continue to be behind the curve. CHECKING OR NO CHECKING.
Your second paragraph = contradiction

Do I even need to explain it to you?
I'm hesitant to go there because of the lack of common sense you used in your last post. :oops: But humor me. Before you do know that the NA did not become more skilled because they played with the Europeans. They learned those skills in practice. They did NOT absorb the skills by being close to the more skilled players. Same with the physical play for the Euros. The games provided the media for learning what they needed to improve and they want back to practice to improve it. Again, the point is you develop in practice and use games to test how well you are doing.
I'll alert Ken Martell and the ADM committee that all games should be cancelled to allow for maximum development. Come to think of it, we should alert the MSHSL as well.

You say you've coached for years. So have I, at many different levels. I have always used games to help players learn what works and what doesn't and they have been great development opportunities used in the proper quantity. I'm very sorry to hear that the players you have coached in all these years have gotten no education and no development from the games they have played. Tragic really.
SnowedIn
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:56 am

Post by SnowedIn »

SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:[quote="MrBoDanglesWhat did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?
Easy there son. Common sense would have told you I was responding to your post "Think what you will folks" and that my comments were directed at SE.

Hitler fan? Nope
Follower? Nope
Book smart? Thanks, maybe I am. I am also a long time coach with a lot of experience on the subject. I posted all of that stuff because who wants to hear it from me? It's well documented and that's much heavier than an opinion. I have seen many coaches (way too many) that ignore fundamental skill training in favor of positioning and strategy and see the severe lack of development of the kids they are supposed to be preparing for the "next level". I have also seen the opposite and what the talent they crank out. Its all common sense too me. Its also common sense that skills aren't developed in games. Games are great and the ultimate ends to the training. Take a highly skilled player and you can teach them the game and they will be dominant. Take a non skilled player that receives no skills training but plays games every day and knows the game and they will be a non factor. Playing games every day will not make you a great player if you don't get the training. Common sense.
Even with all the varied opinions on this board, I have found no one that advocates playing games everyday without effective practices.

Again, you use statements and facts that while true, do nothing to support your arguement on the body contact discussion. I spend countless hours advocating the points you make. They just don't apply here as you would like them to.[/quote]

Are you serious. The games every day is an analogy to make a point. How old are you?
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote: I love that, while you quote people that support the new body contact rules, to support your position of changing them back, I'm the irrational one. Classic.
People? You mean Mr M?

Now you may want to consider that USA Hockey as a body made that decision to ban checking at PW for now. Consider that there were other reasons like keeping more kids in hockey. PW has been the biggest drop off.

Lastly, consider that Mr M, as a representative of USA Hockey, may have supported the decision for but not for the reason of development. He may have not supported the decision at all. Who knows. Ask him.
The decision was brought forth by the player development committee, not the player retention committee. This was the driving force behind the decision. Others weighed in as supporting the proposal, but it came from Player Development.
SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach »

SnowedIn wrote:
SECoach wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:[quote="MrBoDanglesWhat did I contradict?

Many followed Hitler too?

Have you ever heard of "book smart (believe what they're told) with no common sense (think for themselves on solid grounds)?
Easy there son. Common sense would have told you I was responding to your post "Think what you will folks" and that my comments were directed at SE.

Hitler fan? Nope
Follower? Nope
Book smart? Thanks, maybe I am. I am also a long time coach with a lot of experience on the subject. I posted all of that stuff because who wants to hear it from me? It's well documented and that's much heavier than an opinion. I have seen many coaches (way too many) that ignore fundamental skill training in favor of positioning and strategy and see the severe lack of development of the kids they are supposed to be preparing for the "next level". I have also seen the opposite and what the talent they crank out. Its all common sense too me. Its also common sense that skills aren't developed in games. Games are great and the ultimate ends to the training. Take a highly skilled player and you can teach them the game and they will be dominant. Take a non skilled player that receives no skills training but plays games every day and knows the game and they will be a non factor. Playing games every day will not make you a great player if you don't get the training. Common sense.
Even with all the varied opinions on this board, I have found no one that advocates playing games everyday without effective practices.

Again, you use statements and facts that while true, do nothing to support your arguement on the body contact discussion. I spend countless hours advocating the points you make. They just don't apply here as you would like them to.
Are you serious. The games every day is an analogy to make a point. How old are you?[/quote]

Pretty old.
Post Reply