checking rule

[SnowedIn]

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. 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.

Common sense missing again:
My kids learn about the game in the games and a measure of their skill level. My comments about the games strictly apply to "skill" development, not game and sense development which you get from games, but not much if you don't have the skills to play it.
My kids got the skills training route.
I love the games and they are the best part of hockey. My only point is they provide little in the form of "skill" development.

Go back and read all my posts, use some common sense instead of just trying needle.

[MrBoDangles]

"Skills and creative, NON THREATENING scrimmage(games) is a FOCUS"

This was a quote from your Russian article.

Did the Russians come over more skilled from a lack of a threat?

You talked about highly skilled Europeans getting used to NA very physical play and NA getting used to Euro's skilled play..... Please explain how this seperation happened.

Did Neal Broten become our most prolific scorer from great coaching.... or from countless hours of scrimmages/games/shinny?

The judge has made a ruling.

[Trout]

[quote="old goalie85"]That's the first time Russia has won iv 6 or 7 years.[/quote]

Russia Won the World Juniors Championship last year...that is 2 years in a row beating Canada.

It doesn't say much however, Canada has something like 10 eligable players for this tourney playing in the NHL.

[SECoach]

I'm hesitant to go there because of the lack of common sense you used in your last post. 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.

Common sense missing again:
My kids learn about the game in the games and a measure of their skill level. My comments about the games strictly apply to "skill" development, not game and sense development which you get from games, but not much if you don't have the skills to play it.
My kids got the skills training route.
I love the games and they are the best part of hockey. My only point is they provide little in the form of "skill" development.

Go back and read all my posts, use some common sense instead of just trying needle.

Individual and team skills are both developed in practice as well as games. The rule changes are an effort to enhance and increase the individual and team skills during game time, while also educating coaches and players on best practices, to improve their skills away from the games. This decision was made by USA Hockey, while being fully aware of all the facts, statistics, and quotes you present. That's my best attempt at common sense. Also, I've got you up a couple goals in the needling department on my scorecard.

[dangle_snipe]

Honest question:

What "Skill" are we developing by removing checking?


I run all of my practices as if the rule never was changed just to prepare for bantams. I really don't care either way.

[SnowedIn]

"Skills and creative, NON THREATENING scrimmage(games) is a FOCUS"

This was a quote from your Russian article.

Did the Russians come over more skilled from a lack of a threat?

You talked about highly skilled Europeans getting used to NA very physical play and NA getting used to Euro's skilled play..... Please explain how this seperation happened.

Did Neal Broten become our most prolific scorer from great coaching.... or from countless hours of scrimmages/games/shinny?

The judge has made a ruling.

Your honor I request an appeal.

The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the scrimmage part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games.

The separation happened (Europeans more skilled and NA more physical) because the Euros focused on skill based practices and the NA not so much. This is no news flash to anyone that has followed hockey outside of Minnesota/US/NA. It didn't happen because they eliminated checking from Pee Wee hockey. A totally different coaching and training philosophy that thankfully just was adopted by USA Hockey. It will take years (who knows how many) before you get the majority of coaches in the US to 1) Buy in and incorporate into their practice plans and 2) Develop the expertise to teach the 200-300 individual skills to Mites and up.

Shinny is not structured games which is the topic of discussion. We've already covered this. Small area/unstructured games with no pressure to play position and win are awesome. More touches, small spaces, no whistles or clocks = much more development opportunities to work on skills. Not a replacement for proper teaching and reps in a well run practice but an indispensible supplement to rapid skill growth. Many great players had great training and got their 1000's of reps on the ponds and backyard rinks including Gretzky.

[SnowedIn]

Individual and team skills are both developed in practice as well as games. The rule changes are an effort to enhance and increase the individual and team skills during game time, while also educating coaches and players on best practices, to improve their skills away from the games. This decision was made by USA Hockey, while being fully aware of all the facts, statistics, and quotes you present. That's my best attempt at common sense. Also, I've got you up a couple goals in the needling department on my scorecard.

SE - I hear ya I just don't see the improvement in skills by taking away checking for all the reasons I have said. I definitely see an opportunity to use small area games with and without checking. These games can have a number of different rules to work on puckhandling only, passing only, edgework or just your basic small area game. With or without checking BUT WITH A TON OF REP OPPORTUNITIES vs a structured league game.

As for the needling, that post was for BoD.

[SnowedIn]

Honest question:

What "Skill" are we developing by removing checking?


I run all of my practices as if the rule never was changed just to prepare for bantams. I really don't care either way.

The theory proposed is that without the threat of a check players will not shy away from plays that they would with the threat of a check. I say, if players have great hands and edges developed from well run skills practices they are not threatened by check because they see the ice and can handle the checking and still play the game and do their thing. Non checking encourages head down mentality that not only does not prepare the player for Bantam but also does not enable them to see the ice to make plays. Double whammy. Not to mention the size gap only widens at Bantams and time and space takes on a whole different meaning with checking. Dealing with that is a skill in and of itself that now won't start till Bantams. Also the time any player has with the puck in a "real" game is not enough to develop those skills.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

One important item on why USA hockey may have a hard time catching up to Canada or Russia, Finland etc is that more of their best athletes play Hockey, where football and basketball take a lot of ours.

All the skills training in the world only goes so far, the athlete needs to be there.

Checking teaches quick reactions and thinking. Thousands of puck touches only goes so far. Need to work on the mental agility and quick reactions which are best taught in a game situation with physical play.

[SnowedIn]

One important item on why USA hockey may have a hard time catching up to Canada or Russia, Finland etc is that more of their best athletes play Hockey, where football and basketball take a lot of ours.

All the skills training in the world only goes so far, the athlete needs to be there.

Checking teaches quick reactions and thinking. Thousands of puck touches only goes so far. Need to work on the mental agility and quick reactions which are best taught in a game situation with physical play.

Agree. Skills training comes first so players can actually execute plays with their puckhandling, passing and skating - and actually be able to play the game. Small area games in practices are ideal for developing reaction and thinking both with checking and non checking games.

Unfortunately so many coaches do next to no reps of any skills and their players can't execute plays in a game with any consistency. We've all seen this all to often.

[MrBoDangles]

"Skills and creative, NON THREATENING scrimmage(games) is a FOCUS"

This was a quote from your Russian article.

Did the Russians come over more skilled from a lack of a threat?

You talked about highly skilled Europeans getting used to NA very physical play and NA getting used to Euro's skilled play..... Please explain how this seperation happened.

Did Neal Broten become our most prolific scorer from great coaching.... or from countless hours of scrimmages/games/shinny?

The judge has made a ruling.

Your honor I request an appeal.

The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the scrimmage part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games.

The separation happened (Europeans more skilled and NA more physical) because the Euros focused on skill based practices and the NA not so much. This is no news flash to anyone that has followed hockey outside of Minnesota/US/NA. It didn't happen because they eliminated checking from Pee Wee hockey. A totally different coaching and training philosophy that thankfully just was adopted by USA Hockey. It will take years (who knows how many) before you get the majority of coaches in the US to 1) Buy in and incorporate into their practice plans and 2) Develop the expertise to teach the 200-300 individual skills to Mites and up.

Shinny is not structured games which is the topic of discussion. We've already covered this. Small area/unstructured games with no pressure to play position and win are awesome. More touches, small spaces, no whistles or clocks = much more development opportunities to work on skills. Not a replacement for proper teaching and reps in a well run practice but an indispensible supplement to rapid skill growth. Many great players had great training and got their 1000's of reps on the ponds and backyard rinks including Gretzky.

The Russians scrimmage, scrimmage, scrimmage because they don't play much out of their Academy. Ya see, it's not like here in Minnesota where every community has a program and you can drive fifteen minutes to play another team..... I also simply re-quoted what the article said. You, changed scrimmage to shinny and most of the article contradicts what you say.

So any competitive structured game is worthless for development, but 1x1 to 3x3 cross ice games are wonderful? Skills are great, but it's kinda like a tennis player only having played a tennis ball off a wall his whole youth. When it comes time to play on a real court, against a real person, they will have some good skill, but will be lost in an actual game.

Take a group of mites that have played 8-9 full ice games (say Showcase) and have them play a team of the same skill set that have not played full ice. Are you saying that a team will catch up after only one or two games? Will a kid playing 50 catch up to 13 year old Patrick Kane playing 300+ a year?

[SnowedIn]

"Skills and creative, NON THREATENING scrimmage(games) is a FOCUS"

This was a quote from your Russian article.

Did the Russians come over more skilled from a lack of a threat?

You talked about highly skilled Europeans getting used to NA very physical play and NA getting used to Euro's skilled play..... Please explain how this seperation happened.

Did Neal Broten become our most prolific scorer from great coaching.... or from countless hours of scrimmages/games/shinny?

The judge has made a ruling.

Your honor I request an appeal.

The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the scrimmage part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games.

The separation happened (Europeans more skilled and NA more physical) because the Euros focused on skill based practices and the NA not so much. This is no news flash to anyone that has followed hockey outside of Minnesota/US/NA. It didn't happen because they eliminated checking from Pee Wee hockey. A totally different coaching and training philosophy that thankfully just was adopted by USA Hockey. It will take years (who knows how many) before you get the majority of coaches in the US to 1) Buy in and incorporate into their practice plans and 2) Develop the expertise to teach the 200-300 individual skills to Mites and up.

Shinny is not structured games which is the topic of discussion. We've already covered this. Small area/unstructured games with no pressure to play position and win are awesome. More touches, small spaces, no whistles or clocks = much more development opportunities to work on skills. Not a replacement for proper teaching and reps in a well run practice but an indispensible supplement to rapid skill growth. Many great players had great training and got their 1000's of reps on the ponds and backyard rinks including Gretzky.

The Russians scrimmage, scrimmage, scrimmage because they don't play much out of their Academy. Ya see, it's not like here in Minnesota where every community has a program and you can drive fifteen minutes to play another team..... I also simply re-quoted what the article said. You, changed scrimmage to shinny and most of the article contradicts what you say.

So any competitive structured game is worthless for development, but 1x1 to 3x3 cross ice games are wonderful? Skills are great, but it's kinda like a tennis player only having played a tennis ball off a wall his whole youth. When it comes time to play on a real court, against a real person, they will have some good skill, but will be lost in an actual game.

Take a group of mites that have played 8-9 full ice games (say Showcase) and have them play a team of the same skill set that have not played full ice. Are you saying that a team will catch up after only one or two games? Will a kid playing 50 catch up to 13 year old Patrick Kane playing 300+ a year?

Actually my reference to shiny was to your comment on Neal Broten in which you said "shiny" . Look at my post again. "In the Russian part I said "The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the SCRIMMAGE part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games."
See I said scrimmage in ref to the Russians! not shiny and then later I commented on Shiny and Small area games in reference to Neal Brotens and Gretsky's countless hours of POND HOCKEY/SHINY.

No contradition to what I have been saying. The quote I posted on the Russian info fully supports that they are skills first in their training. Did you not read about the focus on individual skills development - stations on the ice - 30 minutes with a puck on their stick etc. SEE BELOW AGAIN They also play scrimmages, and not in my post is that they have a ton of players on the ice and Russians use a lot of small area games as well. So Skills first and games "WITHOUT TACTICS AND SYSTEMS" which means they basically play pond hockey and small area games to develop their skills. All of which supports everything I am saying.
Here it is again:
• 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 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.

I'm really surprised you are a coach if you don't understand the value and difference between Small area games, whether they are 1x1 or 5x5, and a competitive structured game. Small area games are just as competitive as structured games but they are tighter in proximity and have more touches by every player, more battles, more puck protection, no whistles, so more ice time..... You can run 2 or 3 at a time which means no one riding the pine for 2 or 3 shifts. Get it?? Is there value in competitive structured games. Some, but they are blown away as far as skill development vs small area games for all those reasons. THE RUSSIANS DON'T INTRODUCE TACTICS AND SYSTEMS UNTIL 14. Their training is all skills based PERIOD, END OF STORY. Their games are all skills based. The let them play to allow them to develop their individual skills, play making/passing skills, read reaction skills.

Of course you need to learn the game. I never said you don't. All I am saying is that there you need to prioritize between the two. Especially in the younger years, it can't be the priority. 75-85% skills and 15-25% game focus IN PRACTICE. Never said that they will not play their regular season games and learn the game that way. The game is not that complicated - puck possession and puck pursuit and the more skilled and aggressive team will come out on top most of the time. By the end of a season the team that spends 75% on skills (including small area games) and 25% on structured game play in practice will destroy the team that spends 75% on structured game play and 25% on skills in practice.

[SnowedIn]

[quote="SnowedIn
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"
[/quote]

Oh in addition to the re-post on the Russian Training program above I also posted this paragraph and left it out by mistake. So lets break it down:
-6:1 practice to game ratio. They seem to develop really well without a ton of games.
-Creative, non-threatening scrimmage blue line to blue line (small area) 3 on 3 games full of moves (creativity/skills).
-Pretty sure the small area games are not in the 1 in 6:1 since they run them all the time for the purpose of developing their skills as part of their practice plans.

Again, no contradiction. Skills first training including skill enhancing small area games.

You're getting hung up on the word scrimmage. To you it may mean structured game, but they are talking about small area games (50% of the session time spent on blue line creative games).

[SECoach]

Your honor I request an appeal.

The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the scrimmage part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games.

The separation happened (Europeans more skilled and NA more physical) because the Euros focused on skill based practices and the NA not so much. This is no news flash to anyone that has followed hockey outside of Minnesota/US/NA. It didn't happen because they eliminated checking from Pee Wee hockey. A totally different coaching and training philosophy that thankfully just was adopted by USA Hockey. It will take years (who knows how many) before you get the majority of coaches in the US to 1) Buy in and incorporate into their practice plans and 2) Develop the expertise to teach the 200-300 individual skills to Mites and up.

Shinny is not structured games which is the topic of discussion. We've already covered this. Small area/unstructured games with no pressure to play position and win are awesome. More touches, small spaces, no whistles or clocks = much more development opportunities to work on skills. Not a replacement for proper teaching and reps in a well run practice but an indispensible supplement to rapid skill growth. Many great players had great training and got their 1000's of reps on the ponds and backyard rinks including Gretzky.

The Russians scrimmage, scrimmage, scrimmage because they don't play much out of their Academy. Ya see, it's not like here in Minnesota where every community has a program and you can drive fifteen minutes to play another team..... I also simply re-quoted what the article said. You, changed scrimmage to shinny and most of the article contradicts what you say.

So any competitive structured game is worthless for development, but 1x1 to 3x3 cross ice games are wonderful? Skills are great, but it's kinda like a tennis player only having played a tennis ball off a wall his whole youth. When it comes time to play on a real court, against a real person, they will have some good skill, but will be lost in an actual game.

Take a group of mites that have played 8-9 full ice games (say Showcase) and have them play a team of the same skill set that have not played full ice. Are you saying that a team will catch up after only one or two games? Will a kid playing 50 catch up to 13 year old Patrick Kane playing 300+ a year?

Actually my reference to shiny was to your comment on Neal Broten in which you said "shiny" . Look at my post again. "In the Russian part I said "The Russians came over more skilled because of: re read the post and not just cherry pick the SCRIMMAGE part. It's pretty self explanatory and it based on a superior coaching and training regiment that is all about skill practices/training and small area games."
See I said scrimmage in ref to the Russians! not shiny and then later I commented on Shiny and Small area games in reference to Neal Brotens and Gretsky's countless hours of POND HOCKEY/SHINY.

No contradition to what I have been saying. The quote I posted on the Russian info fully supports that they are skills first in their training. Did you not read about the focus on individual skills development - stations on the ice - 30 minutes with a puck on their stick etc. SEE BELOW AGAIN They also play scrimmages, and not in my post is that they have a ton of players on the ice and Russians use a lot of small area games as well. So Skills first and games "WITHOUT TACTICS AND SYSTEMS" which means they basically play pond hockey and small area games to develop their skills. All of which supports everything I am saying.
Here it is again:
• 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 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.

I'm really surprised you are a coach if you don't understand the value and difference between Small area games, whether they are 1x1 or 5x5, and a competitive structured game. Small area games are just as competitive as structured games but they are tighter in proximity and have more touches by every player, more battles, more puck protection, no whistles, so more ice time..... You can run 2 or 3 at a time which means no one riding the pine for 2 or 3 shifts. Get it?? Is there value in competitive structured games. Some, but they are blown away as far as skill development vs small area games for all those reasons. THE RUSSIANS DON'T INTRODUCE TACTICS AND SYSTEMS UNTIL 14. Their training is all skills based PERIOD, END OF STORY. Their games are all skills based. The let them play to allow them to develop their individual skills, play making/passing skills, read reaction skills.

Of course you need to learn the game. I never said you don't. All I am saying is that there you need to prioritize between the two. Especially in the younger years, it can't be the priority. 75-85% skills and 15-25% game focus IN PRACTICE. Never said that they will not play their regular season games and learn the game that way. The game is not that complicated - puck possession and puck pursuit and the more skilled and aggressive team will come out on top most of the time. By the end of a season the team that spends 75% on skills (including small area games) and 25% on structured game play in practice will destroy the team that spends 75% on structured game play and 25% on skills in practice.

No disagreement with the above. Body contact rules have been changed to offer an opportunity to enhance development in the games that are played, and also focus on proper technique at practice sessions. End of story. None of the above facts dispute the basis for the decision.

[The Enlightened One]

OK, I am really confused here. I thought that safety was the reason that checking was removed from PeeWees. I was assured by SECoach and others that safety was not the issue, it was skill development. Then I see the whole point counter point deal about the injury to Jack from BSM and they say right off the bat that one of the ways that they have improved safety for youth hockey players is to not allow checking at the Mites, Squirts and PeeWees.'

[MrBoDangles]

That's what I was saying.

Yes, If you are calling Shinny, 4x4, 3X3, 5x5, or even 7X7 on the lake and other small area games all SKILL training......... Then I agree with you 150%. If you're talking about waiting in line to do Rush'n circles then I disagree.

Broten was able to match a Kane type that plays 300+ games by playing those types of games. I would bet that he played countless 5x5 hours in their free 24hr rink with some mixed indoor/outdoor games. It wasn't from waiting in line to do a coaches "skill drill".

The Russians made these GAMES a "FOCUS"! and the author emphasised that the games were "NON-THREATENING". WHY? So they could focus on creating skills in these games. This is how you get your answer of skilled Russians and physical North Americans.

Give a group of kids a puck and a couple nets and they'll top your skill training.



Good Luck!

[SnowedIn]

That's what I was saying.

Yes, If you are calling Shinny, 4x4, 3X3, 5x5, or even 7X7 on the lake and other small area games all SKILL training......... Then I agree with you 150%. If you're talking about waiting in line to do Rush'n circles then I disagree.

Broten was able to match a Kane type that plays 300+ games by playing those types of games. I would bet that he played countless 5x5 hours in their free 24hr rink with some mixed indoor/outdoor games. It wasn't from waiting in line to do a coaches "skill drill".

The Russians made these GAMES a "FOCUS"! and the author emphasised that the games were "NON-THREATENING". WHY? So they could focus on creating skills in these games. This is how you get your answer of skilled Russians and physical North Americans.

Give a group of kids a puck and a couple nets and they'll top your skill training.



Good Luck!

Good we agree on something. But you are wrong about my skill drills for a few reasons. My skill training includes a combination of drills and small games. Best of both worlds. The other thing you are missing is that skill drills don't need to involved long lines.

Small area games are only part of it and the Russians do a heck of a lot of skill drills. You only think that kids stand in line for skill drills because you haven't seen a really good skill practice. If you set up the practice and the ice properly, you will get a ton of reps in a very high tempo practice with very small lines. Coaches need to learn the right way. You are right about the long lines. I pull my hair out when I see coaches do lame skill drills with 10 kids in line. A properly run skills practice is great for development and conditioning as well.

While small area games are fantastic for developing, the players also need to be taught the correct technique. That's what the skill drills are for. Coaches need to properly instruct and demonstrate and then give the kids lots of reps and provide feedback until they are doing the skill correctly. PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.

When they know the right way and then they get the reps and then they perfect these skills in the drills and small area games, now we're getting somewhere. We've all seen the kids at Bantam and Midget that have poor fundamentals. That's because they picked up bad habits, never were corrected or taught the right way. Bad habits make bad players.

So I'd say play the ton of small area games with properly taught skills through teaching/reps/feedback. That's what the best coaches here do and that's what the Europeans do.

[WB6162]

Now that we're into the season and most teams have one tournament under their belts.

What are your thoughts on no checking. Did USA hockey make the right decision?

The only changes I see this year in PWA opposed to last year is the teams with smaller faster kids are doing better this year. We didn't have any injuries last year, nor did I see any injuries to any players on any other team.

Not to mention majority of associations opted for smaller faster players this year with the rule changes.

As a parent of 3 hockey kids, 2 of which played/play college hockey I can tell you that checking isn't necessary at all for a player to develop. The right way to go would be to say no checking until 18 years of age. I am firmly convinced that the disparity in size and strength between kids plus the volitile tempers of young men combine to make it a bad idea.

At the very least in HS hockey, allow no checking in the offensive zone and penality of ejection and 10 game suspension for any check in the back EVER.

My youngest son is playing college hockey and hardly ever checked and never hurt anyone. The game of hockey is skating, passing and shooting. He was benched as a kid for not being physical enough, used to make me sick. I told him to just play his game and not to worry about it, he just doesn't have that in him. He checks now, but he never really hits anyone.

[muckandgrind]

Now that we're into the season and most teams have one tournament under their belts.

What are your thoughts on no checking. Did USA hockey make the right decision?

The only changes I see this year in PWA opposed to last year is the teams with smaller faster kids are doing better this year. We didn't have any injuries last year, nor did I see any injuries to any players on any other team.

Not to mention majority of associations opted for smaller faster players this year with the rule changes.

As a parent of 3 hockey kids, 2 of which played/play college hockey I can tell you that checking isn't necessary at all for a player to develop. The right way to go would be to say no checking until 18 years of age. I am firmly convinced that the disparity in size and strength between kids plus the volitile tempers of young men combine to make it a bad idea.

At the very least in HS hockey, allow no checking in the offensive zone and penality of ejection and 10 game suspension for any check in the back EVER.

My youngest son is playing college hockey and hardly ever checked and never hurt anyone. The game of hockey is skating, passing and shooting. He was benched as a kid for not being physical enough, used to make me sick. I told him to just play his game and not to worry about it, he just doesn't have that in him. He checks now, but he never really hits anyone.

Man, I disagree totally. Checking IS part of the game. Hockey is a contact sport and should remain as such. .

If the refs would just call the rules as written, everything would be fine.