checking rule

[Irish]

I cant believe what I am reading. All the kids are toe-dragging puck hogs and the Pee-Wee level is allowing it. Waa- Waa. How about some coaching and discipline to play the game the right way. USA hockey says Pee-Wee is still about development so which part of skating with your head up and passing the puck is not development. Are you saying coaches cant teach that or are you saying the kids are to dumb or selfish babys to learn the game. Pee-Wees are old enough to play the game right and pass the puck and skate with their head up. If they dont then they need to sit - miss a shift or a period and the puck will start moving.

Also have a little paitience- Things aren't perfect and they weren't perfect before but give it time. So far I see a lot of bitching about a season not even half done with half of the players that had checking last year. Get over the fact your kid that cant skate fast and is now on a B team instead of an A team and calm down

Little patience? I like that. I'm sure USA hockey does state Peewee hockey is about passing and skating with your head up. Let's not forget about safety aspect too. Remember that? I often wonder why we have more injuries this year with no checking than we had with checking?

As for coaches sitting kids that don't pass the puck or move the puck? I'm still waiting............. In fact the parents I speak with. This is one of their main concerns. Less focus on the team game.
Fact is, modern day Peewee's is nothing different than Squirts. The kids are a little bigger and a little faster, but it's really the same as Squirts.
Everyone has their own view point on the subject but it's hard to disagree if you go and watch the Peewee's this year, opposed to last year. I feel PW hockey has taken a step back this year.

You're right about one thing. We have two more months of hockey. Everyone lets give USA hockey two more months to see if the kids start passing the puck and becoming team players. In districts or state tournaments if you see 2-3 kids skating coast to coast scoring all the goals with little passing that would be a shame. Lets revisit this in two months and see how much it has changed.

[the_juiceman]

I cant believe what I am reading. All the kids are toe-dragging puck hogs and the Pee-Wee level is allowing it. Waa- Waa. How about some coaching and discipline to play the game the right way. USA hockey says Pee-Wee is still about development so which part of skating with your head up and passing the puck is not development. Are you saying coaches cant teach that or are you saying the kids are to dumb or selfish babys to learn the game. Pee-Wees are old enough to play the game right and pass the puck and skate with their head up.
If they dont then they need to sit - miss a shift or a period and the puck will start moving.

Also have a little paitience- Things aren't perfect and they weren't perfect before but give it time. So far I see a lot of bitching about a season not even half done with half of the players that had checking last year. Get over the fact your kid that cant skate fast and is now on a B team instead of an A team and calm down

"old enough to play the game right"--but not check?

[The Enlightened One]

Success or failure???

Both, depending on how you ask the question and who you ask.

It is gonna be a success from that stand point that more kids are going to be playing PeeWee hockey that would have dropped out either before or very early on into their PeeWee year. Right now they are not feeling the heat from contact so they will stay. This is going to be seen as a success both from a numbers standpoint and a financial standpoint for the clubs.

It will also be a good thing from that standpoint that more girls are going to be staying in boys hockey since the main driver for them to leave and go play girls has been removed, contact. Face it, many of the very good squirt hockey players are girls given the fact that they mature earlier are more athletic than their male counter parts so if she was good in Squirts she will also be good in PeeWees. This is a double edge sword though as I think that girls hockey is going to suffer from it. Girls hockey is not going to benefit from those girls who played squirts and maybe a year of PeeWees and then went to a U14 team which made the U14 team better and also their higher skill levels and better skating abilities will not be there to rub off on their team mates.

There are a couple of very serious downsides to removing checking from PeeWees though that I think will ultimately have the rule rescinded by USA Hockey. The first downside is going to be the injury rates spiking in two years. This year's second year PeeWees have been exposed to checking, they know how to give and take hits and will be OK when they hit (no pun intended) Bantams. This year's first year PeeWees are not being taught body contact, hitting, checking, how to give or take a check or anything of the sort from what I have seen. I have watched PeeWee games both "up north"and with cities teams and the one thing that stands out is that it is exactly the same as Squirt hockey. The kids are small, fast kids who go straight down the middle of the ice with their heads down trying to toe drag and dangle the D to score. Heads Up Hockey is a cool slogan and that is it. The size difference between two PeeWee kids is pretty much a non-factor. Sure there can be some due to genetics but over all two boys who have either not hit puberty or who are very early on in puberty are pretty much the same thin, non-muscled, short boys. The physics involved when two of them hit is a wash. When these boys get to their first year of Bantams the differences are going to be stark. You will have boys who are well into puberty, who have been working out, working weights, playing summer hockey and hitting the year before in Bantams going up against a group of kids who are getting into maturity, starting to grow and in that gangly stage, who have no muscle mass yet and who (worst of all) have no idea about hitting or getting hit. Sure, it is the same with first year PeeWees coming up from squirts with the second year PeeWees hitting them but stand back and look at the two, basically the same body type and shape to the kids. That will not be the case with the Bantams, you will have basically young men going up against boys who are ripe for the picking. The rate and severity of injury is going to sky rocket. We will see some very serious injuries in this group. I was talking to a father at a rink (his kid is a toe dragging, dangling fool) and asked him about it. Are you worried at all? I got a mix of two responses from him. No big deal he will probably quit and not play Bantams and just have fun with hockey. The rest of what he said though was scary, he said that if the injuries did start to occur he figures that "they" will do something about hitting in Bantams too.

The number of kids who are going to quit hockey when they get to bantams is going to mirror what it is now for peewees. If a kid is so afraid of contact that he wants to drop out for fear of it at the peewee level he will drop at the bantam level when he gets there.

I am not a fan of hitting for teh sake of hitting. It is a tool to be used to slow down a faster kid and to try to knock the kid off stride. A way to remove him from the puck and that is it.

I am not sure why checking was removed in the first place. In theory it was supposed to help with skill development. I don't see a difference, the same high speed, head down, toe dragging, deaking, kids in squirts are doing the same thing in peewees. Which skills are being made better? Fast with your head down? Not passing so your puck handling skills are better? The timing of the toe drag? It is going to cause as many injuries with more damage when they get to Bantams so that didn't work.

All in all I think it damaged hockey. We are still gonna have kids get hurt. We are still going to lose kids who are afraid of contact. Our girls teams are getting hurt because they are not seeing the high end squirt girls going in for their U14 years and etc.

So, if what I and others are afraid of does come to pass and USA Hockey refuses to see the light. Why not go our own way and bring checking back to PeeWees with some very strict rules about things like head contact? We went our own way with the age deal and from what I can see MN Hockey has not really suffered from it. Sure, we don't get to drive to Chicago for a weekend of hockey and they don't drive here for one but we can still find some decent hockey to play around here if we look for it. Our high schools will probably still be willing to take our youth players. We can probably still put together a 99 team and take them to the Shuffle or something like that.

[skills_coach1]

Jackpinesavage wrote:
I cant believe what I am reading. All the kids are toe-dragging puck hogs and the Pee-Wee level is allowing it. Waa- Waa. How about some coaching and discipline to play the game the right way.

Amen Brutha!!! So true Jackpine!!! The responsibility is on the coaches... Some of whom read this forum... We need to be the ones that help the kids, not ignore our responsibility... To develop players and athletes!!

Interesting thing I have noticed from a large percentage of the posts... Predictive capabilities of the posters akin to Nostradamus!!!! How do you know the drop out rates will be different, how do you know it will be worse??? Really? How do you know injury rates will increase? Think big picture here folks.... A hard thing to do apparently...

Come on guys, our job in youth hockey is to develop the kids.... And for them to have fun... Remember? If we want an ego boost because of our win/loss record, then coach a higher level team!!! One where you have the freedom to be an ass.... and get fired if you don't do well...

We need coaches in youth hockey willing to teach all aspects of the game.... Period! If we aren't doing that, only we, are to blame....

[The Enlightened One]

Jackpinesavage wrote:
I cant believe what I am reading. All the kids are toe-dragging puck hogs and the Pee-Wee level is allowing it. Waa- Waa. How about some coaching and discipline to play the game the right way.

Amen Brutha!!! So true Jackpine!!! The responsibility is on the coaches... Some of whom read this forum... We need to be the ones that help the kids, not ignore our responsibility... To develop players and athletes!!

Interesting thing I have noticed from a large percentage of the posts... Predictive capabilities of the posters akin to Nostradamus!!!! How do you know the drop out rates will be different, how do you know it will be worse??? Really? How do you know injury rates will increase? Think big picture here folks.... A hard thing to do apparently...

Come on guys, our job in youth hockey is to develop the kids.... And for them to have fun... Remember? If we want an ego boost because of our win/loss record, then coach a higher level team!!! One where you have the freedom to be an ass.... and get fired if you don't do well...

We need coaches in youth hockey willing to teach all aspects of the game.... Period! If we aren't doing that, only we, are to blame....

It is pretty much a simple fact of life that for the most part if you are afraid of flying when you are 20 you will be when you are 21. Same for contact. If you are one of those kids who is afraid of contact when you are 12/13/14 nothing is going to change other than you will still be afraid when you are 14/15. You will do what you have to do to avoid it, mainly removing yourself from the source of contact, hockey. You don't have to be a fortune teller to know that, you just have to know kids.... How many times have you as a coach thought "I wish that kid would get into the corner" only to realize that he never does because he is afraid? Several I am sure.

Injuries are easy. Simple body mechanics and physics. Once again not rocket science just simple logic. Two 100 pound kids run into each other and both take about the same impact. A 175 pound kid running into a 125 pound kid when the 125 pound kid is unaware (head down up the middle of the ice sheet watching the puck to make sure it doesn't fall off of his stick so that he can dangle that 175 pound defenseman who is not allowed to hit him and score) or unprepared (see above) and you get a major difference in impact results. Now add to it that the 175 pound kid knows how to hit and you have a real issue. Maybe the games that I have seen are an anomaly but they were games involving some pretty high end programs (some low end ones too) and they were consistent. It is squirt hockey.

I am all for reducing injuries and improving skills. All you have to do it watch a few minutes of the USA v Canada or USA v Cezch Republic and realize that we need to do something to keep up. Contact is a part of boys hockey, always has been, always (hopefully) always will be. It is a tool to be used just like any other tool. When we take these boys out hunting in the fall the first thing we do is take them to hunter safety training and then we talk about it all the way out to the hunting site. We "nag" them about safety and how important it is. We don't take away all of their practice and training and then turn them loose with a loaded gun just because they are a year older. You keep talking about how the coaches are teaching skills now that the kids don't need to fear contact anymore but I don't see it, I see PeeWee A teams built like Squirt A teams for the same purpose, get down the ice in a hurry, dangle the D and score.

[SECoach]

Enlightened One, you do a great job of accidentally making the point for USA Hockey. American players spending two more years being "toe dragging fools" is part of the plan. Learn to be better puck handlers in a skill environment rather than a hitting environment. Although this may not be your view, Pee Wee hockey players are not skilled enough and they need more time with the puck on their stick to become proficent. The rule wasn't changed so kids wouldn't be scared, the rule was changed so at a critical period of development, they would get time to improve their skills. From a defensive standpoint, American hockey players need to develop the skills needed to defend "toe dragging fools" in many, many more ways than delivering a check. The defenders are now being forced to find skilled ways to defend rather than just lumbering over and delivering the hit. The rules certainly allow for a defender to take a "toe dragging fool" off the puck. He/she now needs to develop the skills to do so.

Your theory on girls staying in Pee Wees didn't bear out this season, and likely wont in the future.

The coaches have had much new responsibility placed upon them to focus on the skills that go with playing hockey effectively and that's ok. The simple decision to take the focus off checking at Pee Wees will force defenders (of course this means players without the puck and not defenseman) to improve their skills in this new environment.

More players trying, developing, and becoming "toe dragging fools" will give us more players with the ability to handle the puck. More players with the ability to retain it long enough to make a play, when that becomes the focal point. More players with puck protection skills, more players with the ability to take an angle that will allow them to defend successfully, more players that are able to anticipate the game, more players whose brains have developed the ability to move the puck effectively and see opportunities.

Pee Wees handling the puck more is just plain a good thing, even if it forces some to become better to be involved in the game. Play small area games to force the "toe dragging fools" to either become incredible "toe dragging fools" or learn to move the puck when defended.

[hornethockeymom]

Keep dreaming! These kids are going to get blasted as Bantams. The little ones who made PWA and B1 because of their stickhandling skills will have a tough time learning to play real hockey!!!!

[Aimforthefivehole]

You have to look at the research behind this decision, it's not completely conclusive in that are two factors pulling at each other. Which one is better or less destructive? Injuries at the PW level dropped significantly in Quebec versus Alberta, where checking is allowed, but at the Bantam level when they then compared the stats two years later there was a rise in more significant concussions (longer than 7 days to recover). They found the first year kids were injured more severely as they were not used to contact and obviously size is more at play in Bantams. We have guys that weigh 84 lbs and guys over 150 on our team. In practice we teach the little guys how to better handle themselves and to move the puck more quickly. Trust me- they do move the puck more quickly than the bigger boys because they learned the hard way.
Funny though, we still are teaching our Bantams how to do pull backs on our team even though half you folks in here blast the concept. Sometimes in a one on one situation it's nice to have another option versus going wide. Play pond hockey with a runt that can do it and you will see the value.

[The Enlightened One]

The pull back or toe drag is another tool that a skater can use. I am not privy to the research that is behind it. I can also say that I heard a few different trial balloons that USA Hockey sent up prior to settling for "improving a players skills" by putting them in a non-contact environment. Call it what you want, the hard cold facts of life are that kids who are afraid of contact are going to stay in PeeWees now and quit at Bantams. Over all there will be a spike in numbers as this crop of first year PeeWees who would have quit don't. Numbers have gone up I am sure across the boards. Those numbers are going to drop by the same basic percentages when this first year PeeWee crop hits first year Bantams for the same reason, contact. You will just have more skilled kids dropping out that is all. I am also not privy to the injury data but I am sure that the over all number of injuries is going to be down this year. We will see amazing drops in concussions and etc and the drop will be displayed as proof that removing checking worked. Now, will those numbers be displayed in the 2013 season when this first year of PeeWees hits Bantams? I think not as they are gonna prove my point. Injuries both from the stand points of numbers and severity will be way up. That kid that got dinged up when he was skating with his head down by that kid who is his size in the first year of PeeWees is now going to get hit by a kid almost twice his size, who knows how to hit, who likes to hit and who is good at it. The kid who would have learned his lesson about heads down with the puck and maybe not done it anymore will now be a highly skilled victim wandering around the lobby trying to remember the score and which locker room is his when they send him off the ice with a concussion.

I think USA Hockey blew it. They focused on the wrong thing with this rule and did it for the wrong reasons. What they should have done was gone hard core on injury prevention and reduction. That would have kept those kids who are afraid of contact thinking about staying in the game and would have also allowed the skill development that they want to have happen happen since the environment would feel safer so a kid would have been more comfortable in it. Right now we are on this track to take that squirt A puck hog who goes end to end and turn him into a peewee A puck hog who goes end to end knowing that he can't be touched. All of that is fine and dandy but really we are doing him a disservice because we (as adults) know what is coming. He is gonna get creamed in 2 years.

What happens now is that we have Bantams beginning to check for the first time. Basically that means that a kid will get one year if he goes up to high school as a 9th grader to practice hitting and getting hit before he goes at it with the 12th graders, those kids are truly men and have been at hitting for 4 years or more.......... now what? Checking, whether you like to admit it or not, is a skill set that needs to be learned and practiced. It is more than a big kid "lumbering over" to a smaller kid with a puck. Now we are going to send unskilled 9th grade kids into high school where we have men roaming the ice looking for that kid. That is scary.

[SnowedIn]

Agree completely EO
USA Hockey has done a lot of great things recently in regards to coaching education, but IMO the no checking rule is a bad change that will inevitably be overturned.

"Most" coaches aren't developing kids skills. That's a huge problem. Coaches are not only coaching to win, but also are supposed to prepare players for the next season! USA Hockey is putting out the facts and guidelines on this and most coaches are completely ignoring them just like they are ignoring PW checking in practice as part of development. Is your PW coach spending 75% of practice on skills (edgework with and without the puck, puckhandling - toe drags, pull backs, slip througs, protection and all of the lateral skating that goes with all of these moves???, checking to prepare for Bantams, passing). 90%+ or 95%+ are not! USA Hockey says that your PW coach should be doing this. That's the big problem, not checking.

If kids received better skill development from mite to squirt to PW, by the time they are PWs, their command of fundamental and advanced skills would allow them to play with their heads up and checking is just another progressive skill that would come naturally. Unfortunately, because most coaches spend their time on break outs, flow drills, and strategy, kids don't have the hands or edges to play with their heads up and checking becomes a problem.

SECoach says "Pee Wee hockey players are not skilled enough and they need more time with the puck on their stick to become proficent. The rule wasn't changed so kids wouldn't be scared, the rule was changed so at a critical period of development, they would get time to improve their skills."

Yes, in practice!! How about doing the toe drag and 15 other puckhandling moves, with the puck on EVERY PLAYERS STICK for 30 minutes every practice or every other practice. This includes practicing in open ice, on cones/tripods, and vs team mates and small area games. The 20-30 seconds a player might have the puck in a game will not develop them in the least. THATS A FACT.

USA Hockey wants to improve skill development accross the country and also have a goal to improve US competition internationally. They have the guidelines in place and have pushed for them in a big way. Great job on that! EO made reference to the Juniors. Canada is skilled and plays a superior physical game. The US has lacked a physical presence every year with only a small handful of players each year coming out to play with their bodies - Their weak physical play is more evident this year than ever. It's a huge part of the game. You have to be skilled, fast AND PHYSICAL. Taking checking out at PW will not help the US in the Juniors or at Bantam or PW.

Coach skills better, coach checking better, officiate it better with stiffer penalties for idiotic hits, but don't get rid of a skill that is a huge part of the game.

[SECoach]

The pull back or toe drag is another tool that a skater can use. I am not privy to the research that is behind it. I can also say that I heard a few different trial balloons that USA Hockey sent up prior to settling for "improving a players skills" by putting them in a non-contact environment. Call it what you want, the hard cold facts of life are that kids who are afraid of contact are going to stay in PeeWees now and quit at Bantams. Over all there will be a spike in numbers as this crop of first year PeeWees who would have quit don't. Numbers have gone up I am sure across the boards. Those numbers are going to drop by the same basic percentages when this first year PeeWee crop hits first year Bantams for the same reason, contact. You will just have more skilled kids dropping out that is all. I am also not privy to the injury data but I am sure that the over all number of injuries is going to be down this year. We will see amazing drops in concussions and etc and the drop will be displayed as proof that removing checking worked. Now, will those numbers be displayed in the 2013 season when this first year of PeeWees hits Bantams? I think not as they are gonna prove my point. Injuries both from the stand points of numbers and severity will be way up. That kid that got dinged up when he was skating with his head down by that kid who is his size in the first year of PeeWees is now going to get hit by a kid almost twice his size, who knows how to hit, who likes to hit and who is good at it. The kid who would have learned his lesson about heads down with the puck and maybe not done it anymore will now be a highly skilled victim wandering around the lobby trying to remember the score and which locker room is his when they send him off the ice with a concussion.

I think USA Hockey blew it. They focused on the wrong thing with this rule and did it for the wrong reasons. What they should have done was gone hard core on injury prevention and reduction. That would have kept those kids who are afraid of contact thinking about staying in the game and would have also allowed the skill development that they want to have happen happen since the environment would feel safer so a kid would have been more comfortable in it. Right now we are on this track to take that squirt A puck hog who goes end to end and turn him into a peewee A puck hog who goes end to end knowing that he can't be touched. All of that is fine and dandy but really we are doing him a disservice because we (as adults) know what is coming. He is gonna get creamed in 2 years.

What happens now is that we have Bantams beginning to check for the first time. Basically that means that a kid will get one year if he goes up to high school as a 9th grader to practice hitting and getting hit before he goes at it with the 12th graders, those kids are truly men and have been at hitting for 4 years or more.......... now what? Checking, whether you like to admit it or not, is a skill set that needs to be learned and practiced. It is more than a big kid "lumbering over" to a smaller kid with a puck. Now we are going to send unskilled 9th grade kids into high school where we have men roaming the ice looking for that kid. That is scary.

Not fact, but simply your opinion

[SECoach]

Agree completely EO
USA Hockey has done a lot of great things recently in regards to coaching education, but IMO the no checking rule is a bad change that will inevitably be overturned.

"Most" coaches aren't developing kids skills. That's a huge problem. Coaches are not only coaching to win, but also are supposed to prepare players for the next season! USA Hockey is putting out the facts and guidelines on this and most coaches are completely ignoring them just like they are ignoring PW checking in practice as part of development. Is your PW coach spending 75% of practice on skills (edgework with and without the puck, puckhandling - toe drags, pull backs, slip througs, protection and all of the lateral skating that goes with all of these moves???, checking to prepare for Bantams, passing). 90%+ or 95%+ are not! USA Hockey says that your PW coach should be doing this. That's the big problem, not checking.

If kids received better skill development from mite to squirt to PW, by the time they are PWs, their command of fundamental and advanced skills would allow them to play with their heads up and checking is just another progressive skill that would come naturally. Unfortunately, because most coaches spend their time on break outs, flow drills, and strategy, kids don't have the hands or edges to play with their heads up and checking becomes a problem.

SECoach says "Pee Wee hockey players are not skilled enough and they need more time with the puck on their stick to become proficent. The rule wasn't changed so kids wouldn't be scared, the rule was changed so at a critical period of development, they would get time to improve their skills."

Yes, in practice!! How about doing the toe drag and 15 other puckhandling moves, with the puck on EVERY PLAYERS STICK for 30 minutes every practice or every other practice. This includes practicing in open ice, on cones/tripods, and vs team mates and small area games. The 20-30 seconds a player might have the puck in a game will not develop them in the least. THATS A FACT.

USA Hockey wants to improve skill development accross the country and also have a goal to improve US competition internationally. They have the guidelines in place and have pushed for them in a big way. Great job on that! EO made reference to the Juniors. Canada is skilled and plays a superior physical game. The US has lacked a physical presence every year with only a small handful of players each year coming out to play with their bodies - Their weak physical play is more evident this year than ever. It's a huge part of the game. You have to be skilled, fast AND PHYSICAL. Taking checking out at PW will not help the US in the Juniors or at Bantam or PW.

Coach skills better, coach checking better, officiate it better with stiffer penalties for idiotic hits, but don't get rid of a skill that is a huge part of the game.

Again, not a fact, but an opinion and actually to say that game time doesnt contribute to development at all is silly.........in my opinion.

[The Enlightened One]

SECoach, of course these are my opinions and they are yours and USA Hockeys's too. Pretty much everything on here is opinion. If I wanted to quote facts and stats to you and vice versa we would be on the Physics forum or some place like that throwing facts about quarks and other sub atomic particles back and forth, which we aren't, which makes me happy because that stuff puts me to sleep faster anything.

This whole board (other than the scores) are opinions, I know that. My opinion is that USA Hockey made a mistake with this rule change and the fix to it is very simple, in my humble opinion.

[SnowedIn]

Not my opinion. Its a fact and hockey experts across the globe have written and spoke on this. Players may develop in games but versus a properly run practice at ratio of 1:75 or less, by virtue of the fact of the limited ice time and puck touches they get in a game.

You argued that EO was making a point for USA Hockey. USA Hockey/CDN Hockey/RUS Hockey.... communicate the stats that players do not develop their hands and other skills in games. They develop in practice. Players do not touch the puck enough to develop these skills.

How do you master a skill?

Learn the technique and repeat it over and over until you master it. Perfect practice makes perfect. Coaches need to teach the technique and give the player time for the reps, and correct them while they doing them. Then have them continue perfect reps until they are mastered.

Stats from a Tier 1 Pee Wee National Championship Game in 2002:

Player Ice Time # of Shifts Puck Possession Possesion per Shift
1 17:36 23 43.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
2 18:34 22 35.4 seconds 1.6 seconds
3 15:09 21 30.6 seconds 1.4 seconds
4 12:56 18 47.3 seconds 2.6 seconds
5 15:56 21 41.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
Average 16:02 21 38.4 seconds 1.8 seconds

Put the puck on a players stick in practice for 30 minutes to execute puckhandling reps. Thats 1800 seconds of puckhandling.

How many passes do players execute in a game? A good puck moving team at PW may execute 80 - 100 in a game. So on a good team a player may give/receive 6 passes in a game.

In a good 3 or 4 man passing drill, they'll get this in one or two reps of a drill and do dozens of passes in 5 or 10 minutes.

Structured or unstructured small area games do a lot more for development than a structured full ice games because of increased touches/passes.

Structured full ice games allow the player to learn the game, to develop hockey awareness and give them a chance to use and test their skills. Its a measuring stick not a developing tool.

[Aimforthefivehole]

If we are to believe that Canada has it all figured out -how to beat the world at the game of hockey then why did they ban checking in the Quebec Province? 1/2 of Canada is going in a different direction than the other.

[SnowedIn]

Don't know if they've figured it all out, but they have speed and skill like many of the teams but their physical play and intensity has been tough to contend with over the years at the junior level.

Since you brought up Quebec, the Quebec major juniors is the least successful of the 3 major junior leagues (including the OHL, WHL, and QMJHL) in as far as # of players advancing to the pros.

[SECoach]

SECoach, of course these are my opinions and they are yours and USA Hockeys's too. Pretty much everything on here is opinion. If I wanted to quote facts and stats to you and vice versa we would be on the Physics forum or some place like that throwing facts about quarks and other sub atomic particles back and forth, which we aren't, which makes me happy because that stuff puts me to sleep faster anything.

This whole board (other than the scores) are opinions, I know that. My opinion is that USA Hockey made a mistake with this rule change and the fix to it is very simple, in my humble opinion.

I'm sorry, I get confused when you use the word fact to represent your opinons.

[Irish]

Facts are. Like it or not? Peewee hockey has taken a step back. Which also brings up another interesting fact. More and more girls have opted to play PW hockey this year. No doubt next year more and more girls will make the move. Why not? No contact. They get to play with much better players on the boys teams.
I was watching our PWB2 team play another team in D6. The other team had 5-6 girls on the team. Seriously? What happened to girls hockey? Let me ask. Where do the 12 year old girls get ready for the games and practices?

We recently scrimmaged Arapohoe Warriors from Colorado. Their dad said it best. "Minnesota doesn't check? - Isn't this the state of hockey?" He couldn't believe of all places Minnesota doesn't check in PW hockey.

[SECoach]

Not my opinion. Its a fact and hockey experts across the globe have written and spoke on this. Players may develop in games but versus a properly run practice at ratio of 1:75 or less, by virtue of the fact of the limited ice time and puck touches they get in a game.

You argued that EO was making a point for USA Hockey. USA Hockey/CDN Hockey/RUS Hockey.... communicate the stats that players do not develop their hands and other skills in games. They develop in practice. Players do not touch the puck enough to develop these skills.

How do you master a skill?

Learn the technique and repeat it over and over until you master it. Perfect practice makes perfect. Coaches need to teach the technique and give the player time for the reps, and correct them while they doing them. Then have them continue perfect reps until they are mastered.

Stats from a Tier 1 Pee Wee National Championship Game in 2002:

Player Ice Time # of Shifts Puck Possession Possesion per Shift
1 17:36 23 43.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
2 18:34 22 35.4 seconds 1.6 seconds
3 15:09 21 30.6 seconds 1.4 seconds
4 12:56 18 47.3 seconds 2.6 seconds
5 15:56 21 41.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
Average 16:02 21 38.4 seconds 1.8 seconds

Put the puck on a players stick in practice for 30 minutes to execute puckhandling reps. Thats 1800 seconds of puckhandling.

How many passes do players execute in a game? A good puck moving team at PW may execute 80 - 100 in a game. So on a good team a player may give/receive 6 passes in a game.

In a good 3 or 4 man passing drill, they'll get this in one or two reps of a drill and do dozens of passes in 5 or 10 minutes.

Structured or unstructured small area games do a lot more for development than a structured full ice games because of increased touches/passes.

Structured full ice games allow the player to learn the game, to develop hockey awareness and give them a chance to use and test their skills. Its a measuring stick not a developing tool.

I find it ironic that you will list a paragraph of facts from the experts to prove your point, but dismiss these same experts opinions when you disagree with them on a topic such as body checking at pee wees. All the "facts" you state come from the same US and International "experts". North America is the only place in the world where body checking is viewed this way. The only reason the "experts" in Canada still allow checking in pee wee hockey is that they have 10 fold the number of arm chair experts they have to contend with. My prediction is that when they figure out the PR issues, you will see the same thing happen throughout Canada. It IS the world wide opinion of the experts.

[Deep Breath]

They tried removing checking from the peewee level once before and it didn't last. Won't last this time either. Regardless of whom you blame; USA Hockey, the coaches, the players, the guy driving the Zamboni; like it or not checking is a part of hockey; always has been and always will be. Should be introduced at an earlier age, not later. Watching peewee hockey this winter, both the "A" and "B" level, has been a major dissapointment. Kids are hanging onto the puck so long because they know they won't be knocked off the puck. Take heed, only three months left before the real season starts and the peewees can start playing hockey again.

[edgeless2]

Not my opinion. Its a fact and hockey experts across the globe have written and spoke on this. Players may develop in games but versus a properly run practice at ratio of 1:75 or less, by virtue of the fact of the limited ice time and puck touches they get in a game.

You argued that EO was making a point for USA Hockey. USA Hockey/CDN Hockey/RUS Hockey.... communicate the stats that players do not develop their hands and other skills in games. They develop in practice. Players do not touch the puck enough to develop these skills.

How do you master a skill?

Learn the technique and repeat it over and over until you master it. Perfect practice makes perfect. Coaches need to teach the technique and give the player time for the reps, and correct them while they doing them. Then have them continue perfect reps until they are mastered.

Stats from a Tier 1 Pee Wee National Championship Game in 2002:

Player Ice Time # of Shifts Puck Possession Possesion per Shift
1 17:36 23 43.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
2 18:34 22 35.4 seconds 1.6 seconds
3 15:09 21 30.6 seconds 1.4 seconds
4 12:56 18 47.3 seconds 2.6 seconds
5 15:56 21 41.8 seconds 1.9 seconds
Average 16:02 21 38.4 seconds 1.8 seconds

Put the puck on a players stick in practice for 30 minutes to execute puckhandling reps. Thats 1800 seconds of puckhandling.

How many passes do players execute in a game? A good puck moving team at PW may execute 80 - 100 in a game. So on a good team a player may give/receive 6 passes in a game.

In a good 3 or 4 man passing drill, they'll get this in one or two reps of a drill and do dozens of passes in 5 or 10 minutes.

Structured or unstructured small area games do a lot more for development than a structured full ice games because of increased touches/passes.

Structured full ice games allow the player to learn the game, to develop hockey awareness and give them a chance to use and test their skills. Its a measuring stick not a developing tool.

I find it ironic that you will list a paragraph of facts from the experts to prove your point, but dismiss these same experts opinions when you disagree with them on a topic such as body checking at pee wees. All the "facts" you state come from the same US and International "experts". North America is the only place in the world where body checking is viewed this way. The only reason the "experts" in Canada still allow checking in pee wee hockey is that they have 10 fold the number of arm chair experts they have to contend with. My prediction is that when they figure out the PR issues, you will see the same thing happen throughout Canada. It IS the world wide opinion of the experts.

Well we are all clear on your opinion being the opinion of all experts from all over the world. Not sure anyone is smarter for it.

[Irish]

They tried removing checking from the peewee level once before and it didn't last. Won't last this time either. Regardless of whom you blame; USA Hockey, the coaches, the players, the guy driving the Zamboni; like it or not checking is a part of hockey; always has been and always will be. Should be introduced at an earlier age, not later. Watching peewee hockey this winter, both the "A" and "B" level, has been a major dissapointment. Kids are hanging onto the puck so long because they know they won't be knocked off the puck. Take heed, only three months left before the real season starts and the peewees can start playing hockey again.

Very well stated! Of course my son will be a Bantam next year. One year with checking and one year without checking and next year back to checking.
As the hockey world turns.....................................................

[SnowedIn]

[quote="SECoachI find it ironic that you will list a paragraph of facts from the experts to prove your point, but dismiss these same experts opinions when you disagree with them on a topic such as body checking at pee wees. All the "facts" you state come from the same US and International "experts". North America is the only place in the world where body checking is viewed this way. The only reason the "experts" in Canada still allow checking in pee wee hockey is that they have 10 fold the number of arm chair experts they have to contend with. My prediction is that when they figure out the PR issues, you will see the same thing happen throughout Canada. It IS the world wide opinion of the experts.[/quote]

Are you saying that I have to agree with everything they say? My quote was to provide you with "the facts" that you said were my opinion, as far as why games provide very little skill development opportunity. You will find those same stats in the US, Can, Rus, Czech, Swe...

Those are hard and fact stats. The so called world wide opinion on checking does not have any definitive statistics that support no checking at Pee Wee. If there are some, post them here. Studies show.....at PW blah blah blah. Studies also show that the highest rate of concussions include girls hockey where there is no checking. Studies also are showing a huge increase in concussions and serious injuries at Bantam where PW checking has been banned.

As far as checking goes, the opinions are diverse. My "opinion" on that is that if the focus was on the proper skill training in practice starting at Mite level and up there would be no need to eliminate checking at PW. IMO heads up hockey is pretty much a pipe dream if a player doesn't have the hands, passing and edge skills to handle the puck with their head up. And without that training at Mite/Sqt/PW they won't be any more prepared at the Bantam level to check.

Kids will not become more skilled if there is no checking at the PW level. They will only become more skilled if the coaches start to develop the players skills in practice. Most of the skilled players you see today in the US get the skills on their own outside of their team practice and clinics in the off season.

Another quote:

Kevin McLaughlin, USAH director of player development

Players can’t improve their individual skills during games because there’s simply not enough time, which makes constructive, structured on and off-ice skills development exercises taught by competent coaches and instructors that much more important. “We’ve been saying this over and over. The more quality repetitions you get with any given skill, the easier it will be to turn that skill into instinct.

[The Enlightened One]

OK, sorry that I confused SECoach with my poor choice of words, really didn't mean to.

Here is my humble attempt to fix USA Hockey's problem.

First off, bring checking back to PeeWees, it didn't work before it won't work this time to remove it.

Second off, in an attempt to increase skill development clean up the contact in hockey, do not get rid of it. Make any back checking into the boards that results in a kid's head hitting boards a game misconduct. That goes for boarding, charging, roughing, tripping and etc. Any current penalty that results in a kid's head hitting the boards is an automatic game and a game. That will do wonders to prevent what happened to the kid from BSM this weekend and has happened to other kids before that.

Make ALL head contact with any part of another skater's body a game misconduct. If Skater #1 goes into #2 with an elbow, a forearm shiver, a shoulder, his head or etc and it hits player #2 in the head it is a game and a game. We have ALL seen that crap go on and it needs to stop. I would make no exceptions for size, age, skating ability or lack there or, or anything else. Head contact is head contact, period. I would NOT include that high stick that gets flung up and smacks a kid in the helmet, bad yes, needs to be stopped yes, but not rising to this level. If you are a big kid and are going into a little kid to remove him from the puck or vice versa you had better go lightly and legally. I would, to keep it level, also make taking a dive a misconduct to stop that in it's tracks. Fair is fair.

Make the refs call it. Reffing is not collecting a welfare check. You as a ref have standards that are to be lived up to, it is not your given right to ref a game, you earn it. There for if you refuse to call a penalty because you want to "let them play" or something like that you need to move on. SUre, there will be times when it might or might not have happened or what ever and that is up to the ref. Make the linesmen call them too. You are wearing stripes and are an adult on the ice, if you see a kid elbow a kid in the head behind the ref's back call it and send the kid packing.

I think (not a fact SE, my opinion) that if those rules were enforced and were ramped up to really have some teeth we would see fewer injuries in hockey. Sure, there will be some of them, kids fall down and hit their heads on the ice and stuff like that but most of that is pretty accidental. We can't make hockey totally safe, people slip in the bath tub at home but we still make our kids take baths, but this will stop that intentional, malicious, thuggery that is the problem. I think that Little Johnny the Dangler will feel safe enough to work on his toe drags knowing that he is not gonna get a forearm to the head and at the same time will feel enough anxiety knowing that a clean check is probably in his very near future that he will modify his habits which will be better for all in the long run. This would help him improve his skating and puck handling in a less stressful environment, it would keep him from dropping out since he knows he might be bumped and etc but will not be slammed head first into the boards and it will encourage those hitters right now to learn some new tricks to keep up.

Yes? No? Way off base???

[SnowedIn]

Hard to argue with that...unless you are a 75 Flyer that just woke up out of a coma

Advance the players skills through better practice plans so they can play "heads up", increase penalties for dumb A hits and improve the consistency of enforcement. Then we can let em really play!!