Cross Ice Games

[savagegopher]

I heard USA Hockey is trying to make all Mite Games Cross Ice for 2013.

MN Hockey is fighting.

Seems a little crazy to make your advance/last year of Mites play only cross ice hockey. I would assume you would play 3 on 3 at that level.

I agree lower mites should but your older mites are 8-9 years old and the game starts to look like real hockey at times.

[pucker88]

MN hockey better have some fight in this. The mites are only allowed a certain amount of games and it is great experiance/education for the full ice games at 3rd and 4th yr levels

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

I saw the same thing on another message board. I looked on the USA Hockey site for some confirmation but coudn't find anything (I never can on that site, horrible IMO). If anyone has a link or any other kind of confirmation please post it.

If this happens it could be the death knell for Association Mite hockey in the metro. Bernie could build 3 more rinks and still be turning them away. Cross ice and studio rinks are great for the younger ages but older mites need some full sheet experience to get ready for Squirts and are more than capable of it.

[helightsthelamp]

Playing some 3 on 3 cross ice is not a bad thing. My kids typically play in the different 3 on 3 cross ice events and love it, but making all games cross ice would be a very bad thing. 8 and 9 year olds also enjoy full ice games and compete very well on that stage. Think about those kids that start early, they are not 3rd or 4th year mites, but in many cases 5th year mites and in some cases 6th year mites. Does my 5 year old need to skate full ice, absolutely not. Is it benificial for an 8 or 9 year old to play some cross ice yes, should they only play cross ice games, absolutely not.

[O-townClown]

If USA Hockey does make a hard-line mandate you will see two things:

1) AAU Hockey take hold - already up and running for Mites in Michigan last year and starting in Colorado this year

2) Tons of kids playing up in age

[SECoach]

Should we also make sure that the top 8-9 year old baseball players get to play a large share of their games on a regulation MLB size field as well? Let's not forget the soccer players. Should we put the top 8-9 year olds on a regulation size field so they get to experience it? The governing bodies of baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, basketball, and now hockey all recognize the benefits of playing on an age appropriate size surface.

Many local associations have learned best practices and have gone to cross ice games at all 8U levels and choose not to play teams from associations that have not moved in this direction. They are making a choice based on solid scientific research, not because of any mandates from USA Hockey.

Learn more at http://www.admkids.com/coachRWB.php

[OBOY]

Should we also make sure that the top 8-9 year old baseball players get to play a large share of their games on a regulation MLB size field as well? Let's not forget the soccer players. Should we put the top 8-9 year olds on a regulation size field so they get to experience it? The governing bodies of baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, basketball, and now hockey all recognize the benefits of playing on an age appropriate size surface.

Many local associations have learned best practices and have gone to cross ice games at all 8U levels and choose not to play teams from associations that have not moved in this direction. They are making a choice based on solid scientific research, not because of any mandates from USA Hockey.

Learn more at http://www.admkids.com/coachRWB.php

To say the Scientific research is solid is wrong. Jack Blatherwick wrote a great article on ADM and USA hockey in Let's Play Hockey. Dated Feb. 12th 2009. I would say Jack is pretty smart guy.

USA hockey is organized crime, 3 kids, level 3 class, 2 module, and fee to coach team. $220 last year. Really? Even the Mob would love a racket like that.

USA hockey please stay out of the way of MN hockey we have been doing great for well over 50 years.....

[SECoach]

Should we also make sure that the top 8-9 year old baseball players get to play a large share of their games on a regulation MLB size field as well? Let's not forget the soccer players. Should we put the top 8-9 year olds on a regulation size field so they get to experience it? The governing bodies of baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, basketball, and now hockey all recognize the benefits of playing on an age appropriate size surface.

Many local associations have learned best practices and have gone to cross ice games at all 8U levels and choose not to play teams from associations that have not moved in this direction. They are making a choice based on solid scientific research, not because of any mandates from USA Hockey.

Learn more at http://www.admkids.com/coachRWB.php

To say the Scientific research is solid is wrong. Jack Blatherwick wrote a great article on ADM and USA hockey in Let's Play Hockey. Dated Feb. 12th 2009. I would say Jack is pretty smart guy.

USA hockey is organized crime, 3 kids, level 3 class, 2 module, and fee to coach team. $220 last year. Really? Even the Mob would love a racket like that.

USA hockey please stay out of the way of MN hockey we have been doing great for well over 50 years.....

Jack is a pretty smart guy, but to discount years of research by experts world wide, in favor of one man's opinion is short sighted in my opinion. But just in case, here's a quote from Jack
"The smaller rinks (Hat-Trick and Velocity) require skills and decisions in tight areas. Eliminate whistles for icing and offside, and encourage goalies to avoid freezing the puck. Turn the scoreboards off, so players are encouraged to try creative new skills with no fear of failure."

Another...... "But this format of official games and big-time tournaments develops only a few players; it increases the cost dramatically; it intimidates most players from trying creative plays; and it reduces ice time and puck possession; and therefore, it reduces passion.
Without passion there is no development."

One more.......
"Smaller ice sheets, the size of Noel Rahn’s Velocity Ice Center in Eden Prairie should also be considered. These are great for all ages, not just beginners, because they increase the rate at which decisions occur in confined spaces. On the other hand, larger practice rinks should have a drop-down divider at the center red line, allowing for two scrimmages at the same time."

[old goalie85]

I agree w/ the part about making it cheaper$$$$ The cheaper the more mites a town can get to come out for hockey. Anything that keeps kids playing. Maybe the kids that have skated for 5 or 6 years can be moved up.

[InigoMontoya]

Should we also make sure that the top 8-9 year old baseball players get to play a large share of their games on a regulation MLB size field as well? Let's not forget the soccer players. Should we put the top 8-9 year olds on a regulation size field so they get to experience it? The governing bodies of baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, basketball, and now hockey all recognize the benefits of playing on an age appropriate size surface.

Many local associations have learned best practices and have gone to cross ice games at all 8U levels and choose not to play teams from associations that have not moved in this direction. They are making a choice based on solid scientific research, not because of any mandates from USA Hockey.

Learn more at http://www.admkids.com/coachRWB.php

Stick to the baseball analogy, and a little bit with soccer.

I've never seen smaller tennis courts for younger kids (they may serve from inside the back line); I've never seen a smaller basketball court, a smaller volleyball court (I watched 9 year olds get called for foot fouls this spring), a smaller swimming pool (100m IM is 100m, whether you're 7 or 27), and I don't know any lacrosse that plays on a field smaller than a regulation 100m soccer field.

[SECoach]

Should we also make sure that the top 8-9 year old baseball players get to play a large share of their games on a regulation MLB size field as well? Let's not forget the soccer players. Should we put the top 8-9 year olds on a regulation size field so they get to experience it? The governing bodies of baseball, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, basketball, and now hockey all recognize the benefits of playing on an age appropriate size surface.

Many local associations have learned best practices and have gone to cross ice games at all 8U levels and choose not to play teams from associations that have not moved in this direction. They are making a choice based on solid scientific research, not because of any mandates from USA Hockey.

Learn more at http://www.admkids.com/coachRWB.php

Stick to the baseball analogy, and a little bit with soccer.

I've never seen smaller tennis courts for younger kids (they may serve from inside the back line); I've never seen a smaller basketball court, a smaller volleyball court (I watched 9 year olds get called for foot fouls this spring), a smaller swimming pool (100m IM is 100m, whether you're 7 or 27), and I don't know any lacrosse that plays on a field smaller than a regulation 100m soccer field.

http://www.10andundertennis.com/parents ... er-tennis/

http://www.10andundertennis.com/parents ... s1#videos1

[OBOY]

ADM was based off what we have been doing for 50 years in Minnesota. Small groups, Cross ice game, etc... But we also have been playing full ice games to. For USA hockey to think they are going to MANDATE only cross ice games at a certain level is wrong. I believe we should be doing all of it cross ice and full ice. I've never heard anyone say they are against small ice games.


Velocity, The Pond, Hatrick, and HDC in Lakeville are all awesome and all my kids play a ton of hockey at a few of those places. Those places will have a great impact on the Development of kids.

Common sense tells me that the best way to develop kids is with great coaching and Ice time.

I would like to see an association offer 2 options.

1) ADM Model 45 kids on the ice, only cross ice games, etc..
or
2) a combination of full ice, cross ice and smaller numbers.

I know my Association would be 85-90% for option 2.


I'm so happy that my $220 dollars went to Ann Arbor last year to help develop the elite and not my kids..

USA hockey = The Mob

[SECoach]

ADM was based off what we have been doing for 50 years in Minnesota. Small groups, Cross ice game, etc... But we also have been playing full ice games to. For USA hockey to think they are going to MANDATE only cross ice games at a certain level is wrong. I believe we should be doing all of it cross ice and full ice. I've never heard anyone say they are against small ice games.


Velocity, The Pond, Hatrick, and HDC in Lakeville are all awesome and all my kids play a ton of hockey at a few of those places. Those places will have a great impact on the Development of kids.

Common sense tells me that the best way to develop kids is with great coaching and Ice time.

I would like to see an association offer 2 options.

1) ADM Model 45 kids on the ice, only cross ice games, etc..
or
2) a combination of full ice, cross ice and smaller numbers.

I know my Association would be 85-90% for option 2.


I'm so happy that my $220 dollars went to Ann Arbor last year to help develop the elite and not my kids..

USA hockey = The Mob

Tools, not rules. Many assiations choose "option 1" and some still choose "option 2".

[Scout716]

as a teaching tool cross ice games are beneficial, however kids are kids and they do need their time playing like the "Big Boys" do. We need to have things balanced to keep kids involved playing the game. Kids get excited about a sport because they watch the Wild, Gophers, older brothers, or even Dad they want to play the same game. Even the Video games play full sheets of ice. Not every kid / parent wants to become a div 1 player. if kids enjoy it they keep coming back.

[SECoach]

as a teaching tool cross ice games are beneficial, however kids are kids and they do need their time playing like the "Big Boys" do. We need to have things balanced to keep kids involved playing the game. Kids get excited about a sport because they watch the Wild, Gophers, older brothers, or even Dad they want to play the same game. Even the Video games play full sheets of ice. Not every kid / parent wants to become a div 1 player. if kids enjoy it they keep coming back.

I hear that alot and understand your point. What I don't understand is why kids still want to play baseball, soccer, etc when they are not on a big boy field. Why do young basketball players still have fun with the nets lowered? Does this only apply to hockey?

Also, I would submit that full ice games at 8U and to some degree squirt/10U are not only not beneficial, but are detramental to development. It is time spent on the ice without maximizing potential development. If done right, it is great fun for the kids. If the full ice is to satisfy the kids need for "real hockey", that's a different story. I just don't buy that story either. Who is it that really needs the "thrill" of full ice games? Is it really the kids?

[BadgerBob82]

The kids also love playing their flag-football on 100 yard fields. And t-ball with a 400 foot fence. But I do agree the oldest most experienced mites should be allowed to play squirts so as not to force full ice games on the rest of the mite program.

[BadgerBob82]

Once again, right on SECoach!

Of course it's the parents and alot of lazy coaches. Is much easier standing on the bench opening a gate than being fully involved in 3 simultaneous cross-ice games. Nothing better as a coach after 60 minutes with 3 cross-ice games set up and listening to the kids in the locker room afterward. Every kid had the game of their career!

[Scout716]

I agree with you about the smaller fields, Only place i see it different is the fields look the same. The baseball field, even though the bases are closer and fences in closer the whole field etc loks the same. even most gyms are set up for miniature basketball courts. Hockey would work perfect if all rinks were like the little gottage grove rink / or the white bear hipp. the little kids do not watch dad or big brothers playing sideways on a rink. I really think that is the only hold up on the down sizing of the ice service.

I can't compare any of this to basketball since my kids have never played it, but baseball / t-ball. yes shorter fields, yes softer balls, i.e. but all they seem to do was play games. baseball gods are not telling these kids they cannot play games until they can all catch or hit a ball. they just play. hockey seems to want skills mastered before they are allowed to play games.

So I do agree - development is best on smaller playing surface, as long as it all Looks and Feels real. Plus we seem to have so many Rules for kids 8 and under, I think we sometimes over think it.

[helightsthelamp]

Just like the blue puck is the right choice for last year mites, right? USA makes decisions based upon "research" as some of you have indicated just like the blue puck. How many last year mites shoot that bouncing blue puck five feet over the net? But based on "research" it is safer.....right. Many mite age kids can go bar down with a black puck...

Small area games and drills are excellent for development, there is no doubt in my mind, but also needed is full ice drills such as overspeed and also learn valuable lessons about the game of hockey by playing full ice. To say full ice at upper mite level is detrimental to development is just wrong. As with anything, to much of any one thing is a bad thing. A balance of both cross and full ice games and drills will develop more complete hockey players then either all cross ice or full ice.

Those of you that think it is the parents that would only want to see full ice play, just ask a kid that age (now that is research), I just asked my 9 year old if he would like to play only cross ice games, he said no, that would suck!!!! Maybe all these 'old school' USA hockey people should just ask the kids before making decision, but then they know much better what a 9 year old would enjoy.

The issue with moving the kids up to squirts as was mentioned earlier, is many associations either don't allow move ups or only allowed under very limited circumstances.

[SECoach]

Just like the blue puck is the right choice for last year mites, right? USA makes decisions based upon "research" as some of you have indicated just like the blue puck. How many last year mites shoot that bouncing blue puck five feet over the net? But based on "research" it is safer.....right. Many mite age kids can go bar down with a black puck...

Small area games and drills are excellent for development, there is no doubt in my mind, but also needed is full ice drills such as overspeed and also learn valuable lessons about the game of hockey by playing full ice. To say full ice at upper mite level is detrimental to development is just wrong. As with anything, to much of any one thing is a bad thing. A balance of both cross and full ice games and drills will develop more complete hockey players then either all cross ice or full ice.

Those of you that think it is the parents that would only want to see full ice play, just ask a kid that age (now that is research), I just asked my 9 year old if he would like to play only cross ice games, he said no, that would suck!!!! Maybe all these 'old school' USA hockey people should just ask the kids before making decision, but then they know much better what a 9 year old would enjoy.

The issue with moving the kids up to squirts as was mentioned earlier, is many associations either don't allow move ups or only allowed under very limited circumstances.

Pretty sure the blue puck was not introduced to address any safety concerns. You mention developing a complete hockey player by playing both full and small ice. Without a doubt, this is true. The question is at what age is it advantageous and appropriate to learn certain skills and concepts. Should we consider what is age appropriate? Should we consider what skills are most easily learned and attained at one age versus another? Many 8U players are skilled enough to get up and down the full ice. Does that mean they should spend their time on the ice with very few puck touches and challenges? If you were going to run a puck handling drill and use cones (not what I'm suggesting) would it be best to place 3 cones 60 ft apart or would it be better to place 6 cones 20 feet apart, and so on. Not much challenge or repetition with 3 cones. I would suggest that the same thing applies to a full ice 8U game.

If I asked an 8 year old if he wanted to play all cross ice games, I'm sure he would say No, it would suck, but if we just went out and did it, and then I asked him if he has fun, I'd bet his answer would be yes. I also believe given the opportunity for both, and without any undue influence, he would have more fun playing cross ice. I understand many don't think so. That's ok with me.

[SECoach]

I agree with you about the smaller fields, Only place i see it different is the fields look the same. The baseball field, even though the bases are closer and fences in closer the whole field etc loks the same. even most gyms are set up for miniature basketball courts. Hockey would work perfect if all rinks were like the little gottage grove rink / or the white bear hipp. the little kids do not watch dad or big brothers playing sideways on a rink. I really think that is the only hold up on the down sizing of the ice service.

I can't compare any of this to basketball since my kids have never played it, but baseball / t-ball. yes shorter fields, yes softer balls, i.e. but all they seem to do was play games. baseball gods are not telling these kids they cannot play games until they can all catch or hit a ball. they just play. hockey seems to want skills mastered before they are allowed to play games.

So I do agree - development is best on smaller playing surface, as long as it all Looks and Feels real. Plus we seem to have so many Rules for kids 8 and under, I think we sometimes over think it.

I agree completely that young kids playing baseball and soccer play lots of games with very little practice. 8U "practices" should be loaded with "games", every time they hit the ice.

[jpiehl]

I heard USA Hockey is trying to make all Mite Games Cross Ice for 2013.

MN Hockey is fighting.

Seems a little crazy to make your advance/last year of Mites play only cross ice hockey. I would assume you would play 3 on 3 at that level.

I agree lower mites should but your older mites are 8-9 years old and the game starts to look like real hockey at times.

If you are expecting MN Hockey to fight, you better hope they fight more than they did against banning checking at the PeeWee level. Lots of words, but they voted for it when the vote came up.

As far as making it mandatory, what is wrong with letting associations decide what works best for them? Some use some cross ice, some use all cross ice, and a few use no cross ice. But it is probably whatever works best for them in their particular situation and doesn't need to be mandated just because there is someone in a position of power that likes the idea.

[SECoach]

I heard USA Hockey is trying to make all Mite Games Cross Ice for 2013.

MN Hockey is fighting.

Seems a little crazy to make your advance/last year of Mites play only cross ice hockey. I would assume you would play 3 on 3 at that level.

I agree lower mites should but your older mites are 8-9 years old and the game starts to look like real hockey at times.

If you are expecting MN Hockey to fight, you better hope they fight more than they did against banning checking at the PeeWee level. Lots of words, but they voted for it when the vote came up.

As far as making it mandatory, what is wrong with letting associations decide what works best for them? Some use some cross ice, some use all cross ice, and a few use no cross ice. But it is probably whatever works best for them in their particular situation and doesn't need to be mandated just because there is someone in a position of power that likes the idea.

I agree in making local decisions on this and have not seen or heard any intent from USA Hockey to make it mandatory, except on this forum.

[O-townClown]

JPiehl:

But it is probably whatever works best for them in their particular situation and doesn't need to be mandated just because there is someone in a position of power that likes the idea.

Actually, this is exactly why the ADM guys like Ken Martel feel it does need to be mandated. Left on their own, some programs and coaches have not embraced the concept. This means many players are missing the benefits of increased touches, forced decision making, etc...

SECoach:

Well, well, well...I don't know where to begin. I hope you're right! Our District (Southeast) and Affiliate (Florida) have a much different impression. In fact, we have been told that the half-ice (or crossice) mandate is coming for 2013-14 because of this -

Here is the proposal that was voted on and passed that goes into effect 2012-2103 season.:



USA HOCKEY, INC.

2012 ANNUAL CONGRESS: BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM

PROPOSAL NUMBER: 2012 AC – Youth Council and Player Development

Committee Legislative Proposal #2

NAME OF PUBLICATION: Annual Guide

MAIN HEADING: Rules and Regulations

REGULATION (Heading): X. Games, Exhibition Games, Invitational

Tournaments and Sanctioned Events

Section: A. Definition of a Game

Reference (sub-section):

Paragraph / Page no(s): / Page 142

CURRENT WORDING: (please type in Tahoma/Pitch 11)

A. Definition of a Game: An ice hockey game is a match played against another

team which is registered with USA Hockey or a member organization of the

IIHF. USA Hockey playing rules or approved modification thereof shall apply.

SPECIFIC WORDING OF PROPOSAL: (please type in Tahoma/Pitch 11)

(as it should appear with new wording-bold, Deletions-strikethrough)

A. Definition of a Game: An ice hockey game is a match played against another

team which is registered with USA Hockey or a member organization of the

IIHF. USA Hockey playing rules or approved modification thereof shall apply.



(1) The age appropriate standard playing surface at 8 & Under is cross-ice or

half-ice.

INTENTION OF PROPOSAL: To establish the standard age appropriate game surface for play

at the 8 & Under age category

Submitter: Youth Council and Player Development Committee

So what does that mean? Many in our District are interpreting this to mean that there will be no full-ice Mite games. Of course, if the definition of an 8 & Under game is half-ice play, we need to know what that makes a full-ice game played by Mites. Is that "not a game"? Carrying the thought further, what is the penalty for noncompliance? An affiliate could probably choose to have no penalty, right?

I don't know. This whole thing makes my head explode.

What does it all mean?

For the record, I'm okay with a hardline mandate as long as we have a year's notice before getting hit by the train. Our state is not ready. Programs and families need to figure out what they will do. I don't see us being able to force kids to play a certain level, so my guess is that many 8-year-olds would play Squirts.

[SECoach]

JPiehl:

But it is probably whatever works best for them in their particular situation and doesn't need to be mandated just because there is someone in a position of power that likes the idea.

Actually, this is exactly why the ADM guys like Ken Martel feel it does need to be mandated. Left on their own, some programs and coaches have not embraced the concept. This means many players are missing the benefits of increased touches, forced decision making, etc...

SECoach:

Well, well, well...I don't know where to begin. I hope you're right! Our District (Southeast) and Affiliate (Florida) have a much different impression. In fact, we have been told that the half-ice (or crossice) mandate is coming for 2013-14 because of this -

Here is the proposal that was voted on and passed that goes into effect 2012-2103 season.:



USA HOCKEY, INC.

2012 ANNUAL CONGRESS: BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM

PROPOSAL NUMBER: 2012 AC – Youth Council and Player Development

Committee Legislative Proposal #2

NAME OF PUBLICATION: Annual Guide

MAIN HEADING: Rules and Regulations

REGULATION (Heading): X. Games, Exhibition Games, Invitational

Tournaments and Sanctioned Events

Section: A. Definition of a Game

Reference (sub-section):

Paragraph / Page no(s): / Page 142

CURRENT WORDING: (please type in Tahoma/Pitch 11)

A. Definition of a Game: An ice hockey game is a match played against another

team which is registered with USA Hockey or a member organization of the

IIHF. USA Hockey playing rules or approved modification thereof shall apply.

SPECIFIC WORDING OF PROPOSAL: (please type in Tahoma/Pitch 11)

(as it should appear with new wording-bold, Deletions-strikethrough)

A. Definition of a Game: An ice hockey game is a match played against another

team which is registered with USA Hockey or a member organization of the

IIHF. USA Hockey playing rules or approved modification thereof shall apply.



(1) The age appropriate standard playing surface at 8 & Under is cross-ice or

half-ice.

INTENTION OF PROPOSAL: To establish the standard age appropriate game surface for play

at the 8 & Under age category

Submitter: Youth Council and Player Development Committee

So what does that mean? Many in our District are interpreting this to mean that there will be no full-ice Mite games. Of course, if the definition of an 8 & Under game is half-ice play, we need to know what that makes a full-ice game played by Mites. Is that "not a game"? Carrying the thought further, what is the penalty for noncompliance? An affiliate could probably choose to have no penalty, right?

I don't know. This whole thing makes my head explode.

What does it all mean?

For the record, I'm okay with a hardline mandate as long as we have a year's notice before getting hit by the train. Our state is not ready. Programs and families need to figure out what they will do. I don't see us being able to force kids to play a certain level, so my guess is that many 8-year-olds would play Squirts.

Well we can begin wiith, just because I haven't heard it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dpesnt bother me if it is.