Peewee checking letter

[DumpandChase1]

Greybeard I applaud you effort on this. The problem is that it is a USA hockey decision and talking to a few people I know on the board, this is already a done deal. It will not matter what Minnesota Hockey tells them, this decision has already been made. If we don't like that, I think we have 2 options. 1 is to classify pee wee's as minor bantams. The other is to tell USA Hockey to take a hike and go on our own. I would love to see that happen. Funny how the same people that were pushing for the hep point are the same people that are behind the no checking rule.

[the_juiceman]

I have a question for Fred. My observation indicate the big hitting, "dirty play" that seems to be the focus for rule changes to reduce injuries is most often committed by lower skilled players/teams that seem to have coaches that realize they can't "play hockey" at that level, so they coach to slow the game down with big/dirty hits.

The higher skill level players/teams move the puck and hitting seems less important to them.

So Fred, what is your answer to keep coaches from employing dirty hockey tactics to make up for having less skill? AA and A levels? Fair Play Point? Coaching Education Programs?

My thought is that top teams like say Edina have fewer "big dirty hits" than a team like say Albert Lea. And if those two teams ever played a game, Only one way Albert Lea would stand a chance to "win". And that's to slow them down with "big dirty hits".

do you think all "big hits" are dirty? you seem to speak as if they are one in the same thing.

[goldy313]

Discussion here is good but the first important discussion will be this weekend at the state meeting and if you have not sent in your letters and e-mails then show up and let those who are in favor or standing on the sidelines hear you loud and clear. This is a very important issue for youth hockey and every one should attend as these are open meetings. The agenda is posted on the Mn Hockey web site. See you all there Friday night.

I am of the opinion to let it pass then work with Mn Hockey to get out of USA Hockey. Canadaian provinces play under differnt rules and it works well for them, I think USA Hockey needs to do what is best for them and we need to what's best for us.

[spin-o-rama]

I am of the opinion to let it pass then work with Mn Hockey to get out of USA Hockey. Canadaian provinces play under differnt rules and it works well for them, I think USA Hockey needs to do what is best for them and we need to what's best for us.

MN succeeding from USAH would be the end of community based hockey as we know it. USAH would allow club teams to form all over in MN.

[muckandgrind]

Just got this info from USA Hockey....it's the specifics of their proposal to ban checking at the PW level.....not sure how new this info is....haven't had time to look at it yet....

http://www.usahockey.com/Template_Usaho ... &ID=299508

[observer]

This thing is getting rammed. No debate or other side discussion. They're not looking for, or publishing, other opinions.

[frederick61]

Kevin McLaughlin oversees USA Hockey’s youth hockey development and programs, primarily pushing the American Development Model, which positions USA Hockey to set the standards for all youth development including High School. He has a national agenda and wants to fit Minnesota Hockey into his agenda.

He is the principle proponent at USA Hockey for implementing the checking rule. His logic is based on a Calgary Study that compares two peewee leagues in the 2007 season, one with checking and one without. The level of play is not defined but I suspect it compared A-level play with much faster puck movement to C-level play in 2007.

Kevin dismisses an American Pediatrics Study that states “it is important to teach players “ready” body position before collisions”. The American Pediatrics study urges that be done and recommends that checking be banned under 15 year old players.

Kevin McLaughlin changes the American Pediatric recommendation to peewee age by stating the 11-12 year old kid’s brain development is such that they can’t learn body position, but checking should be maintained at the bantam level (13-15 year old kids) because they are more mature. But his ADM program does not support the idea that an 11-12 year old can’t be taught positioning.

Whenever I see someone with implied authority speaking change I start to look at his actions to see what motivates him to want the change. I question why Minnesota Hockey should “bow” to USA Hockey on this issue and question the motivations of USA’s youth hockey director.

Kevin should take a hard look at the AAA, Tier I, system he endorses. It will not fly in Minnesota because the ice is controlled by communities not by an Organization. Peewee players can’t flip from one team to another because their parents don’t like “the deal”. Parents and kids can play a season without spending $15,000 to $20,000. In Minnesota, the kids can play a game on a Tuesday night and go home. And AAA hockey is where most of his problems are at, it is not Minnesota Hockey.

We should serious think about our future in Minnesota, not about an abstract USA Hockey idea that maybe good for Detroit Michigan. It is time to leave USA Hockey.

[Intheslot]

Could not agree with you more Fred. We should do our own thing. This whole thing reeks and really reminds me of how OC was shoved down our throats. You brought up the term "agenda", beware of people with agendas.

[darkhorse]

Everyone will come in to this topic with their own personal bias/opinions. A rule change, especially one this significant, will immediately invoke a negative response (change is inherently seen as bad.) I personally don't have a dog in this fight, but I can agree with some of the points on each side of this issue.

When listening to the podcast with Kevin, I heard a very different message compared to what seems to be the consensus of the rule change on this board. Why is the change so black and white? From listening to the podcasts and reading some of the material, physical play would not be taken out of the peewee game. There will still be a focus on teaching proper body position and using physical play as part of the game. In my opinion it's the big, injury inducing checks they are trying to avoid and remove from peewee hockey. Unfortunately, this type of language would make the calls made by refs even more subjective (as if there aren't enough issues with that already.)

I can certainly understand and agree with those against the change that kids need to be taught appropriate checking and body position to avoid more serious injuries when they are bigger and stronger. If all physical play was being taken out then I would side with those against this rule. However, I think some of the points made in favor of this rule are very convincing. Skill development is critical at these ages and rather than have kids focused on that they are focusing on not getting their heads taken off (while some kids are focused solely on accomplishing that task.) While this is certainly an important part of the game to learn, It makes sense for kids at this age level to focus more on skill development while learning how to be more physical in the game. If kids can learn physical play and body positioning as squirts and peewees they will have been prepared enough to make the transition as bantams. There will always be a learning curve and while it may only be a couple years, that is a pretty big difference at these ages to learn how to incorporate full-on checking into the game.

At the end of the day we have to ask what is truly best for the kids and for the game? To me this doesn't have to be such a cut and dried issue. We can still incorporate physical play while at the same time being smart about reducing injuries, concussions, etc.

The MN Hockey vs USA Hockey topic seems to be a whole separate issue. Can someone list the (unbiased) pros and cons of each side?

[Intheslot]

I asked this question on another thread and it killed it, so I'll kindly ask again. Could someone who favors this change please explain why this similar rule change failed in the 80's and why does USAH think its going to work today. Thanks

[black sheep]

I asked this question on another thread and it killed it, so I'll kindly ask again. Could someone who favors this change please explain why this similar rule change failed in the 80's and why does USAH think its going to work today. Thanks

Becasue of the fast rise and recruitment of girls hockey!!!!

[frederick61]

Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey are not a separate issue when it comes to the peewee checking issue. Minnesota Hockey will have to change if they adopt the peewee no checking rule by either designating peewee hockey as something else or going to a single year structure for its peewee teams (peewee major/peewee minor).

If we go to a “minor bantam”, then there is no peewee hockey in Minnesota. Teams across the border in Fargo, Mason City, Onalaska, Sioux Falls, etc would have to play the same teams they played this year as “minor bantams” (with whatever that means as far insurance goes). Minnesota squirts will go from squirts to minor bantam.

If we go to peewee major/peewee minor, we lose the ability for small associations to develop players over a two year period, something USA Hockey cares less about since they are dominated by “Organizational” hockey.

In either case, this rule change attacks the core of every Minnesota Hockey association by potentially effecting how Minnesota associations develop kids (field teams/play bordering neighbors) and potentially cutting community interest (“are you telling me that my kid has to go from squirts to minor bantam next year”).

That cuts to the core of Minnesota Hockey at a bad economic time. Rinks could close. Minnesota Hockey has been successful because communities see the benefit at the high school level and have been willing to support their associations by providing ice.

USA Hockey Tier I Organizational spawns teams like Little Caesars Pizza by providing a National Environment in which they play. Organizations own their own facilities or put a lock on community ice whose association has falling numbers (and their numbers then fall more).

The point is Minnesota Hockey has a different approach to youth development then USA Hockey and this peewee checking issue brings out the differences in a glaring way. I believe the two organizations approaches are mutually exclusive and can never be reconciled without major change. Further, I believe Minnesota Hockey has been successful and USA Hockey youth development has been ugly and is becoming uglier.

It would be foolish to try and adapt to the USA model.

[darkhorse]

I asked this question on another thread and it killed it, so I'll kindly ask again. Could someone who favors this change please explain why this similar rule change failed in the 80's and why does USAH think its going to work today. Thanks

I don't know the details of whether the rule change was exactly the same, how long it was implemented, or the reasons for changing it back. What I do know is that over the course of 30 years the size, speed, and skill of the kids has changed dramatically. I was talking to someone that played with a number of Div I players from the early 90s and they were saying the top high school teams today are at a similar level as the Div I teams back then. The speed of the game has increased at all levels. Also, take a look at our society......the desire to be on the "highlight" reel has many kids looking for a big hit. What do we see in the media, on sportscenter, or on youtube? I'm not saying it's all bad because there are plenty of highlights showing great goals/saves. I'm also not someone who thinks everyone deserves a medal because losing teaches kids many valuable lessons. But I do support doing what is best for the kids and making sure we remove detrimental parts of the game. Maybe the answer isn't getting rid of checking at the peewee level, but instead having harsher consequences and holding players/coaches/refs more accountable. There is more than just one way to go about solving this.

[darkhorse]

Minnesota Hockey will have to change if they adopt the peewee no checking rule by either designating peewee hockey as something else or going to a single year structure for its peewee teams (peewee major/peewee minor).

Is this a fact that MN Hockey would have to change or a theory? Are there other options?

[muckandgrind]

I asked this question on another thread and it killed it, so I'll kindly ask again. Could someone who favors this change please explain why this similar rule change failed in the 80's and why does USAH think its going to work today. Thanks

I don't know the details of whether the rule change was exactly the same, how long it was implemented, or the reasons for changing it back. What I do know is that over the course of 30 years the size, speed, and skill of the kids has changed dramatically. I was talking to someone that played with a number of Div I players from the early 90s and they were saying the top high school teams today are at a similar level as the Div I teams back then. The speed of the game has increased at all levels. Also, take a look at our society......the desire to be on the "highlight" reel has many kids looking for a big hit. What do we see in the media, on sportscenter, or on youtube? I'm not saying it's all bad because there are plenty of highlights showing great goals/saves. I'm also not someone who thinks everyone deserves a medal because losing teaches kids many valuable lessons. But I do support doing what is best for the kids and making sure we remove detrimental parts of the game. Maybe the answer isn't getting rid of checking at the peewee level, but instead having harsher consequences and holding players/coaches/refs more accountable. There is more than just one way to go about solving this.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!

THIS is the solution I and others have been preaching for a long time. IMO, the majority of the serious injuries aren't caused by legal checks, they are caused by hits to the head and hitting from behind. If you have the refs crack down on making these calls, you don't need to remove checking.

[darkhorse]

THIS is the solution I and others have been preaching for a long time. IMO, the majority of the serious injuries aren't caused by legal checks, they are caused by hits to the head and hitting from behind. If you have the refs crack down on making these calls, you don't need to remove checking.

I can see your point, but other than the argument that we need to teach kids proper body position and the art of checking when they are smaller (which can still be done even if checking is removed from games) what are the pros of keeping it at the peewee level?

[greybeard58]

Fred,
Will you be attending the state meeting this weekend?

[muckandgrind]

THIS is the solution I and others have been preaching for a long time. IMO, the majority of the serious injuries aren't caused by legal checks, they are caused by hits to the head and hitting from behind. If you have the refs crack down on making these calls, you don't need to remove checking.

I can see your point, but other than the argument that we need to teach kids proper body position and the art of checking when they are smaller (which can still be done even if checking is removed from games) what are the pros of keeping it at the peewee level?

If you take out checking, you (in effect) remove the need for a player to want (or need) to pass the puck. We see it in Squirts (and girls) all the time; players will try to skate the puck end to end with their head down because they don't even need to be concerned about someone checking them off the puck. Checking forces the kids to play "heads-up" hockey and will force those players who would otherwise try to skate end to end to learn how to dish the puck to an open teammate.

I'm also annoyed when I hear people say that you need to take checking out in order to focus on "skill development". CHECKING IS A SKILL!!!! IMO, it's every bit as important as skating, stick handling, passing and shooting.

[Intheslot]

Dark, Muck stole my thunder. The rules are on the books and enforcement is the answer. Checking forces kids to keep their head up and pass the puck. No offense intended but your replies seem more like there coming from the USAH handbook than practical experience.

To me this whole thing is about numbers and revenue and while we're at it srcew Mn. and get them to comply with USAH standards nationally. They know their bread and butter is the PW level and numbers are down because of the economy. So lets boost numbers by changing the game dramatically under the guise of saving little Johnny from the big check.

My kid has already gone through this level, so this rule doesn't affect us but it affects the game. Take kids away from checking for two years and then turn it on at bantams- ridiculous! How many kids with their head down catching a pass at the blue line will be destroyed, I rest my case.
The size desparity at bantams is huge and can't be overlooked.

My opinion is there is a hidden agenda here and this must be stopped.
What is wrong with taking a step back and looking at this from all angles before making what seems to be a big hasty decision and power grab. Fred does bring up some good points and lots of times in life, some seemingly good intentions bring forth lots of unintended circumstances.

[muckandgrind]

In addition, I believe that by removing checking from PeeWees, you'll be hurting the girl's youth game. We'll see more and more girls decide they want to play with the boys because they don't need to be concerned about the hitting. The U12A level will be hit the hardest, IMO.

[NSH17]

Take kids away from checking for two years and then turn it on at bantams- ridiculous! How many kids with their head down catching a pass at the blue line will be destroyed, I rest my case.
The size desparity at bantams is huge and can't be overlooked.

My opinion is there is a hidden agenda here and this must be stopped.
What is wrong with taking a step back and looking at this from all angles before making what seems to be a big hasty decision and power grab. Fred does bring up some good points and lots of times in life, some seemingly good intentions bring forth lots of unintended circumstances.[/quote]


Very well said. I don't have a kid at this level anymore but I do run hockey camps that specifically teach kids how to play the game physically. This doesn't mean big hits. It means good angles, good body position, protecting yourself, and learning how to play the game properly. Maybe kids are a little faster now then they were in the 80's but I don't think they are as smart. We've taught them how to skate 100 miles per hour, but not taught them how to play the game. I asked a kid the other night in a high school game I was coaching. "Why would you beat their meanest player to the puck by barely a step with your back to him, with 30 seconds left in the game that we were winning by a good margin, going full speed into the boards?" He didn't know... Yes, he got checked from behind. Luckily he was fine. I think he understood my point and I used the situation to show the whole team what to do next time.

I don't know where this is all coming from. It seems to me that it is just getting rammed through. It's like the M11 helmet. If they say it helps prevent concussions then it must... When actually most teams, coaches and players I've talked to say the issue is worse with these helmets. They protect well front and back but not on the sides. What a scam.

Taking the checking away is the craziest idea I think I have ever heard.... Enforcing the rules we have and teaching kids how to play the game...like they still do up north is where the focus should go. Not teaching them to skate 100 miles an hour with no stinking idea as to what they are trying to accomplish.

[darkhorse]

Dark, Muck stole my thunder. The rules are on the books and enforcement is the answer. Checking forces kids to keep their head up and pass the puck. No offense intended but your replies seem more like there coming from the USAH handbook than practical experience.

To me this whole thing is about numbers and revenue and while we're at it srcew Mn. and get them to comply with USAH standards nationally. They know their bread and butter is the PW level and numbers are down because of the economy. So lets boost numbers by changing the game dramatically under the guise of saving little Johnny from the big check.

My kid has already gone through this level, so this rule doesn't affect us but it affects the game. Take kids away from checking for two years and then turn it on at bantams- ridiculous! How many kids with their head down catching a pass at the blue line will be destroyed, I rest my case.
The size desparity at bantams is huge and can't be overlooked.

My opinion is there is a hidden agenda here and this must be stopped.
What is wrong with taking a step back and looking at this from all angles before making what seems to be a big hasty decision and power grab. Fred does bring up some good points and lots of times in life, some seemingly good intentions bring forth lots of unintended circumstances.

Appreciate the reply and no offense taken. You make some good points, but parts of your post sound awfully close to conspiracy theories. I don't doubt that money plays a role in some of these decisions, but do you think that is the sole reason for this decision and that it's not in the best interest of the kids? Do you really think the "screw MN" theory plays any role in this decision?

Wouldn't it be the coaches/teams/parents job to teach and educate little Johnny (who isn't so young anymore) to keep his head up, especially when starting bantams? IMO, this isn't about taking physical play out of the game. The kids should still learn about and practice checking.

Completely agree that all angles should be hashed out before any final decisions are made. I get that I'm coming off in favor of this rule but that isn't necessarily the case. I just don't see anyone else making any objective arguments for the rule and there have to be SOME good things that could come from it.

I'm not tied to one side versus the other but IMO having a logical, common sense discussion on the topic is going to be much more productive than throwing out accusations and assumptions. Separating from USAH has been brought up a number of times, again, what would be the pros AND cons of this?

[goldy313]

I am of the opinion to let it pass then work with Mn Hockey to get out of USA Hockey. Canadaian provinces play under differnt rules and it works well for them, I think USA Hockey needs to do what is best for them and we need to what's best for us.

MN succeeding from USAH would be the end of community based hockey as we know it. USAH would allow club teams to form all over in MN.

I don't think so.

For agrument and easy math sake let's say there are 100,000 kids playing hockey as USA resitered players in Minnesota, at $40 a head that's $4 million USA Hockey makes on Minnesota. If Minnesota pulled out of USA Hockey and even a high rate of 20% of the kids went to AAA or some other form of USA Hockey that would result in an $3.2 million dollar loss to USA Hockey. They'd be fools to let that amount walk away due to checking. I'd almost guarentee they'd let Minnesota play by a different standard just like they do with the birthdate issue.

[NSH17]

In addition, I believe that by removing checking from PeeWees, you'll be hurting the girl's youth game. We'll see more and more girls decide they want to play with the boys because they don't need to be concerned about the hitting. The U12A level will be hit the hardest, IMO.

Right on on that one... 12A will take a beating and smaller associations won't even be able to field a 12A team anymore. The aggressive more serious girls will want to play where they can compete because they know it's better for them in the long run.... so they will leave.

[skills_coach1]

It seems to me there is a real misconception over what would be "removed" from the PeeWee Level. If you read the proposal it suggests that checking by definition would be removed, however, body contact, rub outs, angling, steering would be taught even at an earlier age. Is this not the type of "checks" we should be encouraging? The game is after all about putting the puck in the net, right?

It's been my experience that a large percentage of hits you see are high or the kids bring their hands up in defense of their own heads... We as coaches have been guilty of not properly addressing this. Have the kids keep sticks on the ice, two hands on them etc.... The heads up hockey can be taught and would be played if the body rub-outs, and proper stick checking were done. Similarly, skills of rub out avoidance and preparing for that would allow the kids to develop the puck movement philosophy. My own belief is that this can be coached as well.... In my opinion, quick puck movement is part of the teaching program too.

On the USA vs MN debate, I think I might differ in opinion with previously stated concepts. I don't see how single year changes would be a bad thing. Basically MN stands out from the rest of the country due to our age requirements. 11-13, 13-15 for PW and Bantam, respectively. How does dividing this up into four groups (PW Minor, Major, Bantam Minor, Major) instead of two (PW and Bantam) change anything for the way the game is played?

Honestly, I see this as a positive potential step. Some of the bone crushing blows are given due to the size difference. Well, you shrink the age pool to only one year.... Kids are very similar sized, maturity etc.... The potential for those bigger and stronger second year kids to hit the smaller first year is gone...

I could see how this might make it tougher for smaller communities to field teams at each level. However, it may promote more coop environments. Is this a bad thing?? I argue not necessarily.

Change is never easy to handle. Adapting to new environments.... That is the challenge. Obviously a very heart felt discussion....

BTW, my kiddo will be a second year bantam this year is smaller in stature at this point and loves the physical aspect of the game.