Minnesota Hockey board meeting...

[spin-o-rama]

Most are only seeing the headline.

SPIN, quit spinning, we have read the articles to conclusion and a lot of the data (won't claim to of read it all), but still do not agree.

You obviously like the idea and don't like that most on here do not agree, so quit minimizing it that just the headline needs to change and we will see the light and agree with you.

To get better at anything you do it more, not less. To compete with the best you have rules and standards that allow you mirror them and hold them as that standard bearer.

Less is not more, it is just less.

So you think that the traditional pre-season hour long checking clinic is better than 2 seasons of practices featuring checking principles? Wouldn't the latter fit your do it more mantra?

I'm not out to get anyone to agree with me, I haven't figured out if I like the proposal 100%. I do like what the proposal is trying to accomplish. Is the recommendations the best way to accomplish the end goal?

[JSR]

We are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and I believe we will lose higher end players and those that like physical play (In junior high you don't play touch football).

Very true, they play full on tackle football in junior high. However in most every junior high that I've ever visited that has football they also divide the kids into light weight and heavy weight "divisions" so that some early developing 6 foot 160lbs 7th grader can't unload and destroy some 5 foot 75 lbs 7th grader.

I am all for keeping checking but it's clear that keeping it the same as it has always been is also not a good option. Perhaps lightweight and heavyweight divisions then A&B divisions within those for PeeWees might solve the problem better along with doing a better job of teaching body contact at earlier ages and throughout the hockey development process.

Where are you from? I've never seen Junior High kids separated by weight.....I've heard of it at the younger ages, but not in Junior High. Most Junior High teams that I've seen are separated by grade, not by weight.

Like I said before, keep checking in the game....just call the headshots, charges, boarding and checking from behind. Teach the kids how to check properly and move on.

I'm from Wisconsin but it's actually a pretty universal thing. Heck in some areas of some states like Illinois they have light, middle, and heavy weight in the Junior Highs (aka 7th and 8th graders mainly). I know it exists in Idaho, Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida. I bet if you google it you'd find it in most states.

Again I am not for eliminating checking in PeeWee's but there does seem to be enough evidence to atleast change some of the way it's being done. Teaching it better and more often, teaching elements of body contact at younger ages, enforcing that these things are taught, calling games more tightly and having better educated refs on the subject, maybe having tough consequences for Associations that have "X" of illegal hits each week and a total at seasons end to "encourage" that they teach it properly (maybe heavy fines, or exclusion from district playoffs or other such things). That way you can keep the checking but ensure it's being taught properly, enforced properly etc...

[the_juiceman]

No Mite has ever complained about the blue puck without first hearing their coach or parent say the same thing.

Hard to catch a pass? Good grief. Most Mites struggle to catch passes, and I've noticed the ones that can seem to catch passes well with either.

If the goal is to have something that doesn't bounce, we need to switch to a rubber ball partially filled with water. They don't bounce.

I'm surprised there was a movement this year to change the black puck to orange, but nothing to remove blue puck from the rule book. Oh well, two more years with it.

Wrong, a mite that has also played with the black pucks when parents aren't around to make them use the blue puck will notice the difference and make those comments. My first year mite was outside playing and someone brought a blue puck. Everyone kept hitting to another group to get rid of it, opting to use the black pucks. Good grief you act like mites can't do anything and don't notice anything. Sure some struggle with catching passes with EITHER puck but many can and do pass and catch passes. People sure put a lot of effort into finding an alternative to something that already exists ... I guess trying to build a better mouse trap to SELL.

I threw out 3 black and 3 blue pucks on the outdoor rink Saturday night. Kids started using the blue pucks to shoot because "they go a lot faster" and "you can roof them easier." Does my experience mean that black pucks stink for little kids? Not anymore than your tale leads to a blue puck equals evil conclusion.

No checking at Peewees is a similar situation. Most are only seeing the headline. There are elements in the USAh proposal that are very pro contact. Providing for more contact at younger levels, teaching checking in every practice for 2 years before it is legal in games, etc. Yet the focus seems to be on the headline. USAh is doing a poor job of presenting the proposal and the masses are doing a poor job of reading past the headline. There is a lot of common ground to work with.

do you really think you can teach/show them something in every practice, then not expect them to do it in games? These are mostly 12year olds--I don't think it would turn out as planned--even with the best of intentions

[Bronc]

do you really think you can teach/show them something in every practice, then not expect them to do it in games? These are mostly 12year olds--I don't think it would turn out as planned--even with the best of intentions[/quote]

I agree with you Juice.

Coaches "WILL NOT" coach something like this they know they are not going to use in games. They are volunteers for the most part.

They will have best of intentions (some will), but with limited practice and ice time it will be something we get to later.

Sorry a few players dropped out or got hurt by an illegal contact (or just don't like the contact). In Minnesota we have XL (no checking leagues now) if you want your son to play that game. But quit trying to get the Majority to do it for the minority.

[spin-o-rama]

No checking at Peewees is a similar situation. Most are only seeing the headline. There are elements in the USAh proposal that are very pro contact. Providing for more contact at younger levels, teaching checking in every practice for 2 years before it is legal in games, etc. Yet the focus seems to be on the headline. USAh is doing a poor job of presenting the proposal and the masses are doing a poor job of reading past the headline. There is a lot of common ground to work with.

do you really think you can teach/show them something in every practice, then not expect them to do it in games? These are mostly 12year olds--I don't think it would turn out as planned--even with the best of intentions

That is a valid concern and should be answered by the proposers of the rule. Questions like yours should be given as feedback rather than mindless statements like "taking checking out of peewees stinks."

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

No checking at Peewees is a similar situation. Most are only seeing the headline. There are elements in the USAh proposal that are very pro contact. Providing for more contact at younger levels, teaching checking in every practice for 2 years before it is legal in games, etc. Yet the focus seems to be on the headline. USAh is doing a poor job of presenting the proposal and the masses are doing a poor job of reading past the headline. There is a lot of common ground to work with.

do you really think you can teach/show them something in every practice, then not expect them to do it in games? These are mostly 12year olds--I don't think it would turn out as planned--even with the best of intentions

That is a valid concern and should be answered by the proposers of the rule. Questions like yours should be given as feedback rather than mindless statements like "taking checking out of peewees stinks."

Spinner, is checking allowed under the proposal? Simple answer please.

And if its not, then "taking checking out of peewees stinks."

Please don't assume the powers that be at USA hockey understand hockey more than us Minnesotans...

[Bronc]

That is a valid concern and should be answered by the proposers of the rule. Questions like yours should be given as feedback rather than mindless statements like "taking checking out of peewees stinks."[/quote]

Spinner, is checking allowed under the proposal? Simple answer please.

And if its not, then "taking checking out of peewees stinks."

Please don't assume the powers that be at USA hockey understand hockey more than us Minnesotans...[/quote]

Concerned, maybe if you changed the title of your comment to like:

Do you think we should strive to have the best hockey players in the country developed in Minnesota? Or should we put all of our players at a very competitive disadvantage?

If you did that I am sure Spin would be in agreement with you

[spin-o-rama]

Spinner, is checking allowed under the proposal? Simple answer please.

Yes.

(You may need to rephrase your question to get the desired answer.)

And if its not, then "taking checking out of peewees stinks."

From another thread on this subject you posted:

If you take checking out of the PeeWee game it becomes a glorified squirt game where the best players can skate around with their head down and not have to pass the puck. THIS is why all elite players' parents should CRINGE at the thought of their son not developing the aspect of their game that they need to develop most - team awareness and timely decision making.

and

I DO think that it would be a wise decision to create non-checking PeeWee C leagues where those who are new to the game can start or completely develop their skills to allow them to best protect themselves on the ice (i.e. skate with head up and have the necessary control of their body to absorb hits and not leave their head and body exposed due to lack of skillset.) But that would be a rationale way to achieve the objective of allowing PeeWee age players to start hockey or players who just started in their last couple year's of squirts. Play a year in the non-checking league until you can skate properly and then choose to jump up to check to develop further.

Those are more helpful comments. USA hockey is saying that their proposal will help development. Dr Norris explains the stance a bit here.
http://www.admkids.com/media.php I'm only about 1/3 through his talk, so I don't have an opinion yet. They do need to explain why it will work better.
Saying "peewees without checking stinks" is no better than USA hockey saying "blindly trust us." Neither is helpful.

Please don't assume the powers that be at USA hockey understand hockey more than us Minnesotans...

And don't assume that having a MN drivers license makes one a hockey expert. There are lots of hockey experts in MN and there are lots of hockey yo-yos around as well. The powers that be at USA hockey do have pretty impressive resumes. Brian Burke (a Minnesotan and USAh power that be) gives his 2 cents on the above link. Check it out.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Please don't assume the powers that be at USA hockey understand hockey more than us Minnesotans...

And don't assume that having a MN drivers license makes one a hockey expert. There are lots of hockey experts in MN and there are lots of hockey yo-yos around as well. The powers that be at USA hockey do have pretty impressive resumes. Brian Burke (a Minnesotan and USAh power that be) gives his 2 cents on the above link. Check it out.

Spinnee - Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'm presently downloading Burke's speech on the subject and look forward to a hockey mind arguing for it with specific references to development... hoping that's what he does at least.

In the meantime, can I would appreciate your answer to two questions:

(1) Under the proposal, how would a PeeWee player be able to stop a player with a full head of steam in the neutral zone from entering the offensive zone using something other than a poke check?

and (2) how is a forechecker skating full speed supposed to take the puck away from a defensemen who takes possession of the puck in his defensive zone and turns one way or the other in the defensive zone to make a play?

[spin-o-rama]

Spinnee - Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'm presently downloading Burke's speech on the subject and look forward to a hockey mind arguing for it with specific references to development... hoping that's what he does at least.

In the meantime, can I would appreciate your answer to two questions:

(1) Under the proposal, how would a PeeWee player be able to stop a player with a full head of steam in the neutral zone from entering the offensive zone using something other than a poke check?

and (2) how is a forechecker skating full speed supposed to take the puck away from a defensemen who takes possession of the puck in his defensive zone and turns one way or the other in the defensive zone to make a play?

They can give 'em the old McSorley.
Actually, I believe the proposal is as long as they are playing the puck, body contact is allowed. So there are more options than a poke check. Skating ability would be a premium asset. I do hope it would not turn into a game of hooking, tripping, slashing, etc.
More good questions that USAh should address.

[DMom]

Very true, they play full on tackle football in junior high. However in most every junior high that I've ever visited that has football they also divide the kids into light weight and heavy weight "divisions" so that some early developing 6 foot 160lbs 7th grader can't unload and destroy some 5 foot 75 lbs 7th grader.

I am all for keeping checking but it's clear that keeping it the same as it has always been is also not a good option. Perhaps lightweight and heavyweight divisions then A&B divisions within those for PeeWees might solve the problem better along with doing a better job of teaching body contact at earlier ages and throughout the hockey development process.

Where are you from? I've never seen Junior High kids separated by weight.....I've heard of it at the younger ages, but not in Junior High. Most Junior High teams that I've seen are separated by grade, not by weight.

Like I said before, keep checking in the game....just call the headshots, charges, boarding and checking from behind. Teach the kids how to check properly and move on.

I'm from Wisconsin but it's actually a pretty universal thing. Heck in some areas of some states like Illinois they have light, middle, and heavy weight in the Junior Highs (aka 7th and 8th graders mainly). I know it exists in Idaho, Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida. I bet if you google it you'd find it in most states.

Again I am not for eliminating checking in PeeWee's but there does seem to be enough evidence to atleast change some of the way it's being done. Teaching it better and more often, teaching elements of body contact at younger ages, enforcing that these things are taught, calling games more tightly and having better educated refs on the subject, maybe having tough consequences for Associations that have "X" of illegal hits each week and a total at seasons end to "encourage" that they teach it properly (maybe heavy fines, or exclusion from district playoffs or other such things). That way you can keep the checking but ensure it's being taught properly, enforced properly etc...

The conference that includes Forest Lake, Centennial, North Branch, Chisago, etc. does have lightweight and heavyweight junior high football teams. And before that, in youth football, there are weight limits on ball carriers.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Spinnee - Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'm presently downloading Burke's speech on the subject and look forward to a hockey mind arguing for it with specific references to development... hoping that's what he does at least.

In the meantime, can I would appreciate your answer to two questions:

(1) Under the proposal, how would a PeeWee player be able to stop a player with a full head of steam in the neutral zone from entering the offensive zone using something other than a poke check?

and (2) how is a forechecker skating full speed supposed to take the puck away from a defensemen who takes possession of the puck in his defensive zone and turns one way or the other in the defensive zone to make a play?

They can give 'em the old McSorley.
Actually, I believe the proposal is as long as they are playing the puck, body contact is allowed. So there are more options than a poke check. Skating ability would be a premium asset. I do hope it would not turn into a game of hooking, tripping, slashing, etc.
More good questions that USAh should address.

Interesting, by definition a "check", any kind of "check", is an attempt to separate a player from the puck, which by definition would not be "playing the puck" since that player's possession is not the goal, only to force the other player to lose possession.

Skating ability is less of a premium asset in my mind without checking. The kids with the best hand/eye coordination will be the best stickhandlers and poke checkers.

I appreciate your thoughts spin... I'm about 50% of the way through Mr. Burke's speech and I must say its all rhetoric and nothing substantive as of yet...

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

The conference that includes Forest Lake, Centennial, North Branch, Chisago, etc. does have lightweight and heavyweight junior high football teams. And before that, in youth football, there are weight limits on ball carriers.

DMom - Is it your belief that PeeWee's weights make checking more dangerous?

Do you believe at Bantam's they are more the same size and checking would be more safe?

[DMom]

The conference that includes Forest Lake, Centennial, North Branch, Chisago, etc. does have lightweight and heavyweight junior high football teams. And before that, in youth football, there are weight limits on ball carriers.

DMom - Is it your belief that PeeWee's weights make checking more dangerous?

Do you believe at Bantam's they are more the same size and checking would be more safe?

I was just letting muck know that there are jr. high football leagues that take into consideration the size differences of pre-puberty boys.

Actually what I believe is that if people would parent their hockey players we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

I am sick to death of watching kids take runs at other kids when the score is 9-0 or there are 14 seconds left in a game. Ground their butts, be a parent. Just because it happens on a sheet of ice doesn't make it outside the realm of my parenting responsibilities. If my 5'6 peewee is coming in at a 5' boy on the boards and he can take the puck without hurting the other kid, than he better do it. If he takes the kid's head off, than he is going to answer for it later on. Am I squashing his aggression? well, he still really wants the puck.

I appreciate whoever it was that used the example of the angle of the arms away from the body for holding in football. I had a talk with the oldest, as he fully understands the rules of both hockey and football. He's given that example some thought and he isn't getting called for elbows lately.

Sorry, in answer to your question, no I think the size differences is more extreme at bantams and that's why I think that it is important that the first chance they get to legally check someone be when they are closer in size at peewees.

[muckandgrind]

The conference that includes Forest Lake, Centennial, North Branch, Chisago, etc. does have lightweight and heavyweight junior high football teams. And before that, in youth football, there are weight limits on ball carriers.

DMom - Is it your belief that PeeWee's weights make checking more dangerous?

Do you believe at Bantam's they are more the same size and checking would be more safe?

I was just letting muck know that there are jr. high football leagues that take into consideration the size differences of pre-puberty boys.

.

This must be something new.....When I played Jr High football, we had a 8th grade team, and a 9th grade team. There were no weight classifications at all.....I went to Coon Rapids.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Those are more helpful comments. USA hockey is saying that their proposal will help development. Dr Norris explains the stance a bit here.
http://www.admkids.com/media.php I'm only about 1/3 through his talk, so I don't have an opinion yet. They do need to explain why it will work better.
. . .

Brian Burke (a Minnesotan and USAh power that be) gives his 2 cents on the above link. Check it out.

Mr. Burke's speech is a waste of time since it downloads so slow. Spinner - correct me where I inaccurately summarize his points.

He started off his talk with a story about how his son was run from behind in a vicious hit and for the first time he yelled at the other team's coach. I'm not sure what relevance this has.

He said over and over that "we need to make the game accessible", that we need to "keep kids in the program", that there is a "horrific drop off pt in PeeWees", "A lot of kids drop out at age 12" and those kids "don't put their kids in PeeWees." What frustrated me about this line of reasoning is that he never provided any evidence that it is "checking" that causes these things. My money is on the increased costs and time commitment at PeeWee hockey, but if checking is a part of it, I've already expressed my satisfaction with a "no-check" Pee-Wee league.

He closed his 15 mins speech with about 3 mins of conclusory statements about checking. He said "we don't need hitting at PeeWees" because it "gets kids to quit" although he said we need to "teach it, coach it [checking]" without explaining how or why you would coach checking if kids aren't allowed to check. He said that "checking does not enhance skill development" but never explained why he would make this statement which is not self-evident. Why can't you have both? Is it not a skill to be able to play hockey while knowing that you have to act quickly and be aware of physical checking by your opponent?

Then finally he ended with the most disappointing statement of all - he said that when he watches PeeWee games he "doesn't see checking for separation of puck and player but rather kids thinking 'can I hurt this player'". As a PeeWee coach of 4 years now, I have no idea what he's talking about and would 100% disagree with this characterization of MN hockey.

Very disappointing and GROSSLY inadequate if USA hockey only supports its desire to eliminate hitting at PeeWee with conclusory, inaccurate opinions rather than hard theories backed up by facts and studies.

[MrBoDangles]

DMom - Is it your belief that PeeWee's weights make checking more dangerous?

Do you believe at Bantam's they are more the same size and checking would be more safe?

I was just letting muck know that there are jr. high football leagues that take into consideration the size differences of pre-puberty boys.

.

This must be something new.....When I played Jr High football, we had a 8th grade team, and a 9th grade team. There were no weight classifications at all.....I went to Coon Rapids.

I played at Northdale.

[muckandgrind]

Very disappointing and GROSSLY inadequate if USA hockey only supports its desire to eliminate hitting at PeeWee with conclusory, inaccurate opinions rather than hard theories backed up by facts and studies.

This is my fear.....

[O-townClown]

CHC, you provided your own definition of a check and it does not match what USA Hockey will use to enforce the NO CHECKING IN PEE WEES rule change.

Your forechecker in the example can close the space of the defender and plant a shoulder in the chest while stick-checking and skate out with the puck. We always called those checks.

Using their jargon, that's one of the many forms of allowable body contact. Just like how overtaking isn't passing to a highway patrolman.

Let's say this is the worst idea in the world. How does just making up stuff prove that?

The videos in the link on here a few weeks back showed several types of allowable body contact from Pee Wee Quebec, the Pee Wee national championship, and World Juniors. It also showed an example of what not to do, exemplified by #91 more often than not. As Kevin McLaughlin said, "maybe we're doing him a disservice."

Wanting a big hitter to be a skilled player makes sense to me. Taking him at age 11 and 12 and celebrating the decleaters probably doesn't help.

Minnesota could try to continue on as they play now. Since you don't want to follow directives from the Minnesotans in the leadership of USA Hockey, you can follow the lead of your own affiliate. With something to compare to, national can track whether this has any benefits.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

CHC, you provided your own definition of a check and it does not match what USA Hockey will use to enforce the NO CHECKING IN PEE WEES rule change.

Your forechecker in the example can close the space of the defender and plant a shoulder in the chest while stick-checking and skate out with the puck. We always called those checks.

Using their jargon, that's one of the many forms of allowable body contact. Just like how overtaking isn't passing to a highway patrolman.

Let's say this is the worst idea in the world. How does just making up stuff prove that?

The videos in the link on here a few weeks back showed several types of allowable body contact from Pee Wee Quebec, the Pee Wee national championship, and World Juniors. It also showed an example of what not to do, exemplified by #91 more often than not. As Kevin McLaughlin said, "maybe we're doing him a disservice."

Wanting a big hitter to be a skilled player makes sense to me. Taking him at age 11 and 12 and celebrating the decleaters probably doesn't help.

Minnesota could try to continue on as they play now. Since you don't want to follow directives from the Minnesotans in the leadership of USA Hockey, you can follow the lead of your own affiliate. With something to compare to, national can track whether this has any benefits.

Now I understand why Canada and the Europeans have sooooo many Nhl'ers. Their not following directives from "clowns" and are just playing the sport of hockey with the intention of hopefully hitting the big league. Please tell me O-Town how you can sleep comfortably at night after this post? If I need to teach my player's how to interpret what a check is...who is going to keep the Ref's aware of these rules?? Hockey is being dismantled by special interests and it isn't taking into account Minnesota Hockey interests...time to bring the blue puck back.

[O-townClown]

I only sleep comfortably because "hockey is being dismantled by special interests".

Keep smoking it.

[the_juiceman]

I was just letting muck know that there are jr. high football leagues that take into consideration the size differences of pre-puberty boys.

.

This must be something new.....When I played Jr High football, we had a 8th grade team, and a 9th grade team. There were no weight classifications at all.....I went to Coon Rapids.

I played at Northdale.

in 7th grade they had 2 traveling teams in CRAA-1 lightweight & 1 heavyweight. I went to Epiphany

[InigoMontoya]

Why not two basketball teams? One for tall kids and one for short kids.

[elliott70]

Why not two basketball teams? One for tall kids and one for short kids.

I like this.
Two NBA leagues, I may have a chance.

[muckandgrind]

This must be something new.....When I played Jr High football, we had a 8th grade team, and a 9th grade team. There were no weight classifications at all.....I went to Coon Rapids.

I played at Northdale.

in 7th grade they had 2 traveling teams in CRAA-1 lightweight & 1 heavyweight. I went to Epiphany

CRAA was not "Junior High Football"....Just as youth hockey is not high school hockey.