NO CHECKING UNTILL BANTAMS

[SECoach]

Pick a piece of my post if you must. I guess that means that the posters should stop bashing USA Hockey and their policies and resign themselves to the fact that good decisions have been made over the past several years in an effort to improve american hockey. The checking rule would be just another great decision. Head hunting as we now play it at the youth level is not good for the advancement of American Hockey. The IIHF Championships are not won playing the way our youth are playing and growing up with this style hurts the skill level across the board of our players.

Teaching players to use checking correctly is a great thought, but will not be effective until the fans (read parents) stop making this the highlight of the game. Little Johnny isnt a very good skater but man can he break someone in half. Once again USA Hockey is forced to legislate common sense for the good of the players and the game that they oversee.

[Mailman]

The like the idea of teaching how to check properly at the Pee-Wee level and to start checking at the Bantam. Lets let kids learn how to skate with there heads up first. This is something you used to learn playing outside playing pond hockey without having to worry about getting your head taken off. Skill developement, Skill developement, skill developement!!

At the youth level it should be about seperating the player from the puck, not putting a kid in the hospital.

Major penalties at the Bantam and high school levels for elbows or any blow to the head with match penalties for intent to injure. To many guys running around trying to hurt someone.

I'm glad USA hockey has the balls to do the right thing,

Just my opinion.

There already are (and always have been) major/match penalties at the Bantam and high school (and even Pee Wee) levels. Obviously, they haven't worked, or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

[the_juiceman]

Pick a piece of my post if you must. I guess that means that the posters should stop bashing USA Hockey and their policies and resign themselves to the fact that good decisions have been made over the past several years in an effort to improve american hockey. The checking rule would be just another great decision. Head hunting as we now play it at the youth level is not good for the advancement of American Hockey. The IIHF Championships are not won playing the way our youth are playing and growing up with this style hurts the skill level across the board of our players.

Teaching players to use checking correctly is a great thought, but will not be effective until the fans (read parents) stop making this the highlight of the game. Little Johnny isnt a very good skater but man can he break someone in half. Once again USA Hockey is forced to legislate common sense for the good of the players and the game that they oversee.

checking is part of the game-headhunting isn't. You seem to be lumping all players into the same catagory. for every "headhunter" out there, there are 15 kids who aren't. why take away checking just because of the few? why not take away the headhunters? as a coach, do something about it--teach your players what is & isn't acceptable, if they don't/won't get it--don't play them. it's a contact game, the rules just need to be enforced. You can teach them the skills but not how to check? I don't buy it.

[SECoach]

Pick a piece of my post if you must. I guess that means that the posters should stop bashing USA Hockey and their policies and resign themselves to the fact that good decisions have been made over the past several years in an effort to improve american hockey. The checking rule would be just another great decision. Head hunting as we now play it at the youth level is not good for the advancement of American Hockey. The IIHF Championships are not won playing the way our youth are playing and growing up with this style hurts the skill level across the board of our players.

Teaching players to use checking correctly is a great thought, but will not be effective until the fans (read parents) stop making this the highlight of the game. Little Johnny isnt a very good skater but man can he break someone in half. Once again USA Hockey is forced to legislate common sense for the good of the players and the game that they oversee.

checking is part of the game-headhunting isn't. You seem to be lumping all players into the same catagory. for every "headhunter" out there, there are 15 kids who aren't. why take away checking just because of the few? why not take away the headhunters? as a coach, do something about it--teach your players what is & isn't acceptable, if they don't/won't get it--don't play them. it's a contact game, the rules just need to be enforced. You can teach them the skills but not how to check? I don't buy it.

Strongly disagree. Checking as a priority is not part of the game, except in America. Head hunter may be too strong a word, but if you are claiming that there is one player in a game with misplaced priorities, I stongly disagree. This is the focus of our youth game. One coach teaching to play correctly is a pretty tough road to change the game, but I promise I'll do my small part. Will you?

[HockeyDad41]

Wouldn't there be a middle ground? I mean, does it have to be either or?

[hockeyfan74]

SEcoach - Please enlighten me on these good decisions made by USA hockey, because all the one's (including this one if they do it) I have seen are not very good.

[SECoach]

Juiceman took issue with my statement that the American game has lagged behind the rest of the world by pointing out that we have done well recently in international competition. My point is how can you complain about the decisions that USA Hockey makes, and then brag about how well we have done? How can American Hockey improve the way it has and give no credit to the organization that runs it? I propose that it's no accident.

[hockeyfan74]

SECoach - Most of the changes I disagree with have happened is the last 4 or 5 years - None of those kids are even old to be playing in international competition. So to correct you yes I can complain about the recent decisions USA hockey has made because they have no effect on our recent success. I know for my boys they play association hockey to keep them busy. Their real development happens during the off-season when teams go against what USA hockey says is best - more specifically at younger levels.

[SECoach]

SECoach - Most of the changes I disagree with have happened is the last 4 or 5 years - None of those kids are even old to be playing in international competition. So to correct you yes I can complain about the recent decisions USA hockey has made because they have no effect on our recent success. I know for my boys they play association hockey to keep them busy. Their real development happens during the off-season when teams go against what USA hockey says is best - more specifically at younger levels.

Oh, ok I understand. Have fun and best of luck with your summer leagues.

[imlisteningtothefnsong]

My thought is if we focus more on stick handling and skating with your head up it is much harder to get hit. Learning how to hit and get hit is important, and so is stick handling.

[ihsdana]

I agree with changing it to bantams. To many players and coaches focus in on this skill during games rather than skating and having fun. But, if we could educate our coaches more that might be another solution. Or have each association do a FREE checking clinic to all Peewee's and Bantams might work. USA Hockey could also have a checking seminar thats mandatory for all registered coaches.

[ihsdana]

My opinion...we can't leave it in the hands of parents or referees. We need to educate the coaches! USA Hockey needs to better educate the coaches.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

As a PeeWee A hockey coach, I read alot of the thoughtful observations and arguments... and while many good points are made, I guess my empirical observations don't mesh with the sudden portrayal of Pee-Wee hockey as the violent-out-of-control world people are making it out to be.

I worry about what is next frankly... This year we have the new rule that 12-13 year old kids can't be trusted by themselves in the locker-room. The "grown-ups" cite a "legal threat" as the reason why coaches should "embrace" having to babysit 12 and 13 year olds... but as a coach I know this is nonsense AND the proponents of the rule know that it is nonsense. (How does having one "adult/coach" in the locker-room prevent lawsuits against coaches?? Think about it, it only makes them more to blame now b/c every event now was conducted in their presence!) The anti-bullying, 24/7 "parenting" attitude drove this change... a good-intentioned change, but one that necessarily is accompanied by the unintended consequences of removing valuable social skill building in out kids... something I thought sports was supposed to foster?

Going back to the non-checking, as a coach, I know that "big" dangerous head hits happen for three primary reasons: 1) a kid plays with his head down, 2) a kid is a poor skater playing out of his skill level (B teams playing A teams) and 3) poor coaching. I don't understand how these things change at the bantam level when a kid magically becomes 14 or so. The "size" discrepancy argument is a myth to me as well. Go watch a Bantam A game and you'll see six foot plus kids playing against 5 foot 2 kids in almost every game with the larger kids having a huge poundage advantage. The game is faster and only more dangerous if the root problems of hitting aren't taught and addressed.

Lastly, from a developmental standpoint... USA and MN hockey like to say that skill development will increase if you take away hitting. First, skill development is best developed in practice and the ability to stickhandle 24/miles per hour means nothing if you can't do it under pressure of being checked. Second, watch a squirt game and ask yourself if it develops kids best during a game when the best players can stickhandle with their heads down. Take away checking from PeeWee's and you take away the ability to shut down the best players - not to mention taking away their incentive to be team players and pass the puck.

I'm sorry, but after thinking about all the arguments and points of view, I think this is another wrong step for USA/MN hockey in the name of good-intentions.

[Penalty Box]

Well said Concerned! Thanks for saving me the typing.

[O-townClown]

As a PeeWee A hockey coach, I read alot of the thoughtful observations and arguments...

I'm sorry, but after thinking about all the arguments and points of view, I think this is another wrong step for USA/MN hockey in the name of good-intentions.

Concerned, you make very good points based on your experiences. But let me ask you this:

If the change is made - and I think what is being discussed is to introduce body contact at the Squirt level while holding off on full body checking until Bantams - will you support it?

For a change like this to be successful, it is important that everyone - coaches, parents, hockey directors - be supportive. I look at the resistance to "Red, White & Blue hockey" (a/k/a crossice Mites) and have to laugh. Or cry. To address problems down the road when players are 16, 19, or even 24, it is necessary to handle things differently at every step and too many people aren't letting that happen.

In general, professional coaches (soccer, hockey, basketball) would like to see more creativity in their players. This has been beaten out of their players by a system that requires kids to play adult games, almost from the very beginning.

These recommendations didn't come out of nowhere. People with far more experience than you and I, often with a different perspective, have concluded that there will be improvement if such changes are adopted. I'm open-minded enough to give it a try.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

[/quote]Concerned, you make very good points based on your experiences. But let me ask you this:

If the change is made - and I think what is being discussed is to introduce body contact at the Squirt level while holding off on full body checking until Bantams - will you support it?

For a change like this to be successful, it is important that everyone - coaches, parents, hockey directors - be supportive. I look at the resistance to "Red, White & Blue hockey" (a/k/a crossice Mites) and have to laugh. Or cry. To address problems down the road when players are 16, 19, or even 24, it is necessary to handle things differently at every step and too many people aren't letting that happen.

In general, professional coaches (soccer, hockey, basketball) would like to see more creativity in their players. This has been beaten out of their players by a system that requires kids to play adult games, almost from the very beginning.

These recommendations didn't come out of nowhere. People with far more experience than you and I, often with a different perspective, have concluded that there will be improvement if such changes are adopted. I'm open-minded enough to give it a try.[/quote]

ClownTown - thank you for your thoughtful responses. I want to separate acceptance of a new rule and "fighting" against rule changes. I don't think at this time I want to even think about "supporting" the new rule. A rule is a rule is a rule - until its changed... and of course I'd follow the rules.

I guess I come at this whole thing from a different perspective. The lack of creativity in the game isn't an offshoot of checking at PeeWee's, thus to focus on eliminating checking from the PeeWee game seems to me to be misguided, which in most cases leads to unintended and unforeseen consequences. I for one, do not think that there is a lack of creativity in today's game at the PeeWee level. In fact, the PeeWee level ("since that's what I coach and know best") has never been played at a higher pace and skill than I've seen. If people think that creativity means more juking, "behind the back" plays or long passes for breakaways then I guess I don't want your "creativity". Creativity should be how can I create space when I have or don't have the puck in order to avoid being beaten by a good body check. How does taking checking out of the game help such creativity? In my brain, it only becomes more "individual" focused since players can now play with their head up and without regard to where the opposing players are.

Also, your point about "smart" people knowing better... sometimes I'm not so sure that a "pro coach" knows best for what creates the type of player that can skate at his or her level. I mean, they may know more, but then again they may not and simply be very good at the level they coach. A great Pro Coach is not necessarily a great PeeWee coach. Sometimes they would be sometimes they wouldn't be.

As far as the squirts being introduce to "body contact" v. "body checking"... I honestly don't know how it matters. Go watch a competitive squirt A game and they already have "body contact" in the corners. What's missing is being able to go chest to chest or shoulder to shoulder to stop a player in open ice... so I guess I don't see the large benefit to thinking we are "introducing" body contact to squirts.

I just don't buy the main arguments proposed thus far, "hockeywise". Injury wise??? I'm skeptical but will defer to the experts on neuro-science stuff... just not blanketed statements that somehow PeeWee hockey is more dangerous than Bantam hockey... that my experience must call BS and thus may be hiding another agenda or simply jumping at the chance to eliminate body contact period.

My hopefully, common two cents....

[PWD10]

If you look at the results of the concussion meeting that they had at Mayo earlier this year I am pretty sure that they say that there are more concussions in college women's hockey than in college men's hockey and football COMBINED

Great point. Wasn't it just last week on the news where they reported that the symptoms of girls concussions are often undiagnosed or something to that effect compared to boys?

FWIW the most dangerous events in college in no ascending order are Cheerleading...no contact, Womens Gymnastics...no contact and then football.

Will soon have kids wearing great big bubbles and trying to play hockey. It is sad how far a sport can degenerate before it becomes a laughable event. A little over 30 years ago no one wore helmets or face-shields.

[InigoMontoya]

A little over 30 years ago no one wore helmets or face-shields.

Apparently those are the guys running the show now.

[ssppuck]

I didn't read this entire post but here is my take on it. Please don't change it. Why change something that has been working great forever. The equipment is better now than it was in the past. Kids are being protected. What is being taught now are the escapes that kids are using to control and protect the puck, so there are more checks are made by accident in the back by the skater trying to get away
Teach them to give a pass and take the check like we used too. Don't teach your kid to turn his back. especially against the boards.
Start checking in bantams, Come on. What will high school hockey look like with only 2 years of checking under there belt.
Will AAA hockey have to go by this too. Or can you check in the summer and not in the winter. LEAVE IT ALONE!

[old goalie85]

Is summer hockey governed by USA hockey???

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Its nice to see some of what I consider "common sense" reasoning showing up on this topic here...

BUT I am very interested in the merits of people who support eliminating body checks from the PeeWee game.

Are there people who can respond to Politically Disconnected's allegation that concussions are a more serious problem in women's "no check" hockey than the men's games?

Can anyone make an argument as to how the "hockey" development of our kids will improve at the PeeWee level without checking?

I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm very interested in the "powers that be" voicing their rationale and arguments.

Thanks

[Bronc]

Its nice to see some of what I consider "common sense" reasoning showing up on this topic here...

BUT I am very interested in the merits of people who support eliminating body checks from the PeeWee game.

Are there people who can respond to Politically Disconnected's allegation that concussions are a more serious problem in women's "no check" hockey than the men's games?

Can anyone make an argument as to how the "hockey" development of our kids will improve at the PeeWee level without checking?

I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm very interested in the "powers that be" voicing their rationale and arguments.

Thanks

When you won a company and want to be the "BEST" you try and emmulate the best globally not just in your own back yard.

From my understanding Canada and other world powerhouses (most NHL players are not from the US correct?) have checking and at even a younger age then us. Heck they even use a slap shot in squirts.

Possibly to teach kids the need to handle the puck in traffic, keep their heads up (true sign of skill), recognize a ck coming, brace for it, have the skating skill to avoid a ck, understand how to take advantage of the angle of attack by a D etc.

Having a change like this would appear to put our kids at an even more competitive disadvantage.

Making a change like this is in comparison to the US deciding to duplicate the quality of life here to match that in a third world country.

Discussion is great, but decisions need to mirror those in the lead or to make us even better not for politically correct reasons.

This sport is not for everyone. There are no ck leagues for those that would prefer not to.

[observer]

If every hockey player also played tackle football we wouldn't be having this discussion, which in my opinion, is a silly one.

Some kids are afraid of contact and play accordingly. The confusing part for some parents and coaches is that you don't know which mites and squirts it will be until they get to PeeWee. A few you will have suspected to be afraid but there will also be a few players you never suspected would have a problem with contact that will also avoid it. When it's your child it's difficult to experience for the first time.

It's their first experience with having permission to blast another kid. Can't do that at school. The only other place they could have become comfortable with hitting is football where they start hitting in 3rd grade. If they've been hitting since 3rd grade hitting in 6th grade won't be a problem. If they get their first exposure to hitting during their first PeeWee practice during the fall of 6th grade it's a big if if they will take to it without ever having any experience.

[silentbutdeadly3139]

If you look at the results of the concussion meeting that they had at Mayo earlier this year I am pretty sure that they say that there are more concussions in college women's hockey than in college men's hockey and football COMBINED

Great point. Wasn't it just last week on the news where they reported that the symptoms of girls concussions are often undiagnosed or something to that effect compared to boys?

FWIW the most dangerous events in college in no ascending order are Cheerleading...no contact, Womens Gymnastics...no contact and then football.

Will soon have kids wearing great big bubbles and trying to play hockey. It is sad how far a sport can degenerate before it becomes a laughable event. A little over 30 years ago no one wore helmets or face-shields.

Those comparisons aren't worth much. No one is disputing if checking should be in hockey, just what age is appropriate. Those are college kids not 11-12 year old kids with large disparity in size. Times change, you send your kid out without a helmet and shield ?

FYI - I am for checking but more stringent enforcement of the current rules and the hope that coaches teach kids how and when to check ... not as intimidation/punishment tactic.

[PWD10]

Those comparisons aren't worth much. No one is disputing if checking should be in hockey, just what age is appropriate. Those are college kids not 11-12 year old kids with large disparity in size. Times change, you send your kid out without a helmet and shield ?

It was food for fodder. Programs that have no contact have much greater injury rates then those meany boy sports.

How is that fair play point system working? I think if more areas adopted something like that the illegal hits and such would go way down. http://minnesotahockeyhep.com/hep-artic ... effective/

I think the issue here is USA Hockey is National and were a small footprint it the global scheme. I might add our players are bigger and probably faster by age group then the rest of the country too due to our uniqueness.

Not everything USA Hockey does is a good fit or needed as mandatory for every place that they oversee.

I have yet to see a hit this year at the Bantam level at the top level in almost 30 games that was even a concern to me.

Is there probably a need for addressing elsewhere. Yes. Here no.