Keep going Lou

[Govie]

just like all the soft rule changes, theres no old school anymore, Its time for a change. BYE BYE lou!

Lou is hardly "soft."

Lou defended EVERY huge hit that Hill threw on Moorehead that game. He defended ALL of them. I appreciated that.

Lou IS what hockey is all about.

[Neuuman]

My only criticism of Lou's commentary during the AA championship game was the repeated references to spinal cord injuries.

Please know that I wish no one would ever have to suffer from such an injury, and my heart and admiration goes out to people who live impaired lives. But with the Jablonski boy, Lou's focus on the assistant coach who suffered a spine injury while playing several years ago, and Lou's reference to another hockey player who became paralyzed after losing his balance when he crashed into the boards after some idiot threw a coin on the ice, it became too much.

Anyone new or fairly new to hockey tuning in to the championship game might come away from the game thinking that the game is way too dangerous to play, especially if they are thinking of letting their kids play hockey. I know that was not Mr. Nanne's intent to blacken the game with his references to spine injuries.

Maybe others noticed the repeated references to paralysis in that game. And perhaps I am way too sensitive to the public perception of hockey.

It's not just you. I think the Jablonski thing has gone really over board, with all due respect to him and his family and all the suffering. I distinctly remember a couple kids that got paralyzed in the metro area back in the 90s and the coverage of those instances were nil. Seriously. For some reason the Jablonski warranted this attention when there have been numerous such instances in the past?

Our society has become soft. I just found out yesterday they have now banned checking in pee-wees. And their contention was that it would make the game "safer." I was shocked.

Anyone who has grown up in the state playing knows the biggest jump is from pee-wees to bantams. My jump from pee wees to bantams was the first year I was cut, and a lot of it was a lot of kids went through puberty and were absolutely huger than me. And the powers that be some how think that just jumping into bantams not having some background in checking etiquette in pee wees and throwing them into the bantams somehow makes them safer? Fooey. Total manure.

Anyway, that is just a total rant on my behalf and better kept for a thread on the issue.

My contention is that society is paranoid, hypersensitive, politically correct...soft. I don't fault Lou for talking about it since it is THE topic this year.

First of all, my heart and prayers go out to the Jablonski's and all of their freinds and family.

Eliminating "checking" in PeeWee's, at least to me, seems like it will make the problem worse, not better.

I was (about 100 years ago) a small player in PeeWee "A". There was checking - I got hit many times. And I learned how to deal with it. When I got to Bantam's, I had grown - I was not "big", but I was average sized. There were MANY players much bigger than me. I shudder to think how many more bone crushing checks I may have had to endure if I hadn't yet learned how to protect myself.

Letting kids play hockey without "checking" until they are 13-14 yrs old (when many have fuller beards than I have now) and many others have not yet hit puberty, seems like an even bigger recipe for disaster.

I was glad I learned in PeeWee's not to look at my feet when the puck was there vs. learning that lesson in Bantams when it was a 5'11" 185 lb. kid exploding me.

Bottom line - hockey is an inherently dangerous sport. If players and parents want a 100% guarantee the kids won't get hurt - don't play. If they are both willing to take the risk, give them the best opportunity to have a minor injury at age 12 vs. a life-changing injury at age 14-15.

IMHO.

[Roy01]

My only criticism of Lou's commentary during the AA championship game was the repeated references to spinal cord injuries.

Please know that I wish no one would ever have to suffer from such an injury, and my heart and admiration goes out to people who live impaired lives. But with the Jablonski boy, Lou's focus on the assistant coach who suffered a spine injury while playing several years ago, and Lou's reference to another hockey player who became paralyzed after losing his balance when he crashed into the boards after some idiot threw a coin on the ice, it became too much.

Anyone new or fairly new to hockey tuning in to the championship game might come away from the game thinking that the game is way too dangerous to play, especially if they are thinking of letting their kids play hockey. I know that was not Mr. Nanne's intent to blacken the game with his references to spine injuries.

Maybe others noticed the repeated references to paralysis in that game. And perhaps I am way too sensitive to the public perception of hockey.

It's not just you. I think the Jablonski thing has gone really over board, with all due respect to him and his family and all the suffering. I distinctly remember a couple kids that got paralyzed in the metro area back in the 90s and the coverage of those instances were nil. Seriously. For some reason the Jablonski warranted this attention when there have been numerous such instances in the past?

Our society has become soft. I just found out yesterday they have now banned checking in pee-wees. And their contention was that it would make the game "safer." I was shocked.

Anyone who has grown up in the state playing knows the biggest jump is from pee-wees to bantams. My jump from pee wees to bantams was the first year I was cut, and a lot of it was a lot of kids went through puberty and were absolutely huger than me. And the powers that be some how think that just jumping into bantams not having some background in checking etiquette in pee wees and throwing them into the bantams somehow makes them safer? Fooey. Total manure.

Anyway, that is just a total rant on my behalf and better kept for a thread on the issue.

My contention is that society is paranoid, hypersensitive, politically correct...soft. I don't fault Lou for talking about it since it is THE topic this year.

First of all, my heart and prayers go out to the Jablonski's and all of their freinds and family.

Eliminating "checking" in PeeWee's, at least to me, seems like it will make the problem worse, not better.

I was (about 100 years ago) a small player in PeeWee "A". There was checking - I got hit many times. And I learned how to deal with it. When I got to Bantam's, I had grown - I was not "big", but I was average sized. There were MANY players much bigger than me. I shudder to think how many more bone crushing checks I may have had to endure if I hadn't yet learned how to protect myself.

Letting kids play hockey without "checking" until they are 13-14 yrs old (when many have fuller beards than I have now) and many others have not yet hit puberty, seems like an even bigger recipe for disaster.

I was glad I learned in PeeWee's not to look at my feet when the puck was there vs. learning that lesson in Bantams when it was a 5'11" 185 lb. kid exploding me.

Bottom line - hockey is an inherently dangerous sport. If players and parents want a 100% guarantee the kids won't get hurt - don't play. If they are both willing to take the risk, give them the best opportunity to have a minor injury at age 12 vs. a life-changing injury at age 14-15.

IMHO.

I agree with the fellow posters here, but in all honesty, I feel the Jack Jablonski incident was dragged out..

My sympathies to him and his family; it's a terrible incident that shouldn't happen to anyone, but it did. Hockey is a contact sport and we all play it knowing that it is a risk, though. I look at the exact same time period though and Jenna Privette also was injured. Does anyone even remember her? She seems completely forgotten in this whole thing and, if anything, her situation was somewhat worse because contact is not allowed in girls hockey.. I can't fault Lou for speaking about head injuries during the course of the tournament (as it was said earlier, it was the focus this year).

To eliminate checking in peewee's is unbelievable.. I remember being a squirt and WANTING to check before I switched over to goalie. You're going to now get a bunch of boys maturing at different rates in bantams (some kids small, others bigger/taller) and they won't know how to hit properly! This will very likely result in more injuries at the youth level, bantams specifically when you get the "ogre" on the ice going against the "late bloomer." (Unless everyone expects the M11 to save the day...)

The actions taken by the leagues following the Jack Jablonski hit are understandable, but it can hurt the game too. I enjoyed the tournament this year, but I felt that Hill Murray was the only team that kept a physical presence throughout with the new rule changes. Duluth was beaten by Lakeville 1- by a lackluster effort... 2- a good Lakeville goalie, and I also think the new rules were a factor as well. Duluth is traditionally a physical team and that presence was eliminated completely. I saw players shy away from hits constantly and, with a fast team like Lakeville, they could not slow them down without laying the body a bit and it did not happen.

Whether it be the rules or the way they're enforced, something must be addressed with this in the off-season, otherwise you'd might as well change boys hockey to no contact as well and we can have two girls state tournaments.

[Sats81]

My only criticism of Lou's commentary during the AA championship game was the repeated references to spinal cord injuries.

Please know that I wish no one would ever have to suffer from such an injury, and my heart and admiration goes out to people who live impaired lives. But with the Jablonski boy, Lou's focus on the assistant coach who suffered a spine injury while playing several years ago, and Lou's reference to another hockey player who became paralyzed after losing his balance when he crashed into the boards after some idiot threw a coin on the ice, it became too much.

Anyone new or fairly new to hockey tuning in to the championship game might come away from the game thinking that the game is way too dangerous to play, especially if they are thinking of letting their kids play hockey. I know that was not Mr. Nanne's intent to blacken the game with his references to spine injuries.

Maybe others noticed the repeated references to paralysis in that game. And perhaps I am way too sensitive to the public perception of hockey.

It's not just you. I think the Jablonski thing has gone really over board, with all due respect to him and his family and all the suffering. I distinctly remember a couple kids that got paralyzed in the metro area back in the 90s and the coverage of those instances were nil. Seriously. For some reason the Jablonski warranted this attention when there have been numerous such instances in the past?

Our society has become soft. I just found out yesterday they have now banned checking in pee-wees. And their contention was that it would make the game "safer." I was shocked.

Anyone who has grown up in the state playing knows the biggest jump is from pee-wees to bantams. My jump from pee wees to bantams was the first year I was cut, and a lot of it was a lot of kids went through puberty and were absolutely huger than me. And the powers that be some how think that just jumping into bantams not having some background in checking etiquette in pee wees and throwing them into the bantams somehow makes them safer? Fooey. Total manure.

Anyway, that is just a total rant on my behalf and better kept for a thread on the issue.

My contention is that society is paranoid, hypersensitive, politically correct...soft. I don't fault Lou for talking about it since it is THE topic this year.

First of all, my heart and prayers go out to the Jablonski's and all of their freinds and family.

Eliminating "checking" in PeeWee's, at least to me, seems like it will make the problem worse, not better.

I was (about 100 years ago) a small player in PeeWee "A". There was checking - I got hit many times. And I learned how to deal with it. When I got to Bantam's, I had grown - I was not "big", but I was average sized. There were MANY players much bigger than me. I shudder to think how many more bone crushing checks I may have had to endure if I hadn't yet learned how to protect myself.

Letting kids play hockey without "checking" until they are 13-14 yrs old (when many have fuller beards than I have now) and many others have not yet hit puberty, seems like an even bigger recipe for disaster.

I was glad I learned in PeeWee's not to look at my feet when the puck was there vs. learning that lesson in Bantams when it was a 5'11" 185 lb. kid exploding me.

Bottom line - hockey is an inherently dangerous sport. If players and parents want a 100% guarantee the kids won't get hurt - don't play. If they are both willing to take the risk, give them the best opportunity to have a minor injury at age 12 vs. a life-changing injury at age 14-15.

IMHO.

I think you bring up some very valid points. Youth hockey will suffer without teaching kids the proper way to give and take a check, angling, etc at the peewee level. I think its a recipe for disaster.

[Tornadoes 2003StateChamps]

I really enjoyed listening to Lou. Great insight!