checking rule

[Irish]

I propose to allow checking back into Peewee hockey for the 2012-2013 season.

Anyone second my motion?

[2legit2quitguy]

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.....................................................

Since your son moves to Bantams next year & will get the opportunity to check, why the big push to have checking reinstated at the Pee Wee level next year?

[Coachk]

Because anyone whose has coached Peewees knows its a chore to get them to check. Some do, but most are afraid of looking silly by missing a check. Also it will put us further behind the Canadians and look know further then Edina, Whose former North Star player now coach is disgusted with the rule change. Just the everyone gets a trophy PC mentality.

[SECoach]

I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.

[skills_coach1]

I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.

Very well said SECoach!!!

[muckandgrind]

I MUCH prefer the North American style of hockey versus the European style of hockey.....just as I prefer watching the NFL versus flag football.

IMO, checking is just as important to the game as a good toe-drag....actually MORE important. I prefer to see a team game versus individual play with heads down.

I still maintain that we will see MORE injuries at the Bantam level due to this rule change....

[SnowedIn]

I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.

SECoach: Didn't re-read all of the posts from the last few days but don't remember anyone saying anything about scaredy cats??? Nor have I read anyone thumping their chests about how hockey is a tough guy's sport. Checking is a huge part of the game. Checking is the ultimate form of puck separation and the "good" coaches teach it that way. Eliminating the BS head hunting that goes on with stiffer penalties will go a long way to force coaches and players to stop that activity.

The skill aspect of the game has been evolving ever since the Europeans started coming over in bigger numbers in the later 80's and 90's. Hockey has already evolved skillwise in a big way and will continue to. The Europeans have brought more skill and forced players in North America to catch up and you see many more highly skilled players here in NA versus the past. At the same time The Europeans have increased their physical play to keep up with that aspect of the game. They have evolved as well.

I think the game is better than ever. Its highly skilled and highly physical. Since the interference rules started to be enforced the glutching and grabbing and hooking.... has all but gone away making the game even better.

BUT checking has not gone away and it won't and it is a huge part of them game. Skilled players can check great and avoid checks because they have great edges and see the ice "because of their skills", not because they didn't have checking at Pee Wee.

Once again, players do not develop their skills in games. The evidence is unrefutable. They develop the "finer points" as you say, or the "essential points" as I say, in practice if the coaches run efffective skills practices. You make it sound like the posters don't care about skills. Read my posts again. And last time I checked, coaches don't send kids out to crush a kid during a stickhandling drill. It's the same forum that can be used for non check small area games to allow the kids to develop their skills, in addition to checking small area games. This is where the skill development has to happen both with and without checking.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school).

The bad news is that if anyone believes that banning checking is the fix for skill development you will not see any improvement in the game. The majority of kids will continue to be B or C players, with many B players playing A or highschool because there aren't enough A players to field the teams. Attend an international coaching clinic, or even a USA Hockey coaching clinic and you will see what the rest of the world is doing to improve skills. Its in the way they practice! You cannot develop holding the puck for 1.5 seconds a shift and making 6 passes a game.

SECoach - you like to refer to the Europeans and how "they do it". I do too! They are not more skilled because of checking or no checking because they don't develop the kids in games. Some don't even play "real" games until they are Pee Wees or later. They do it with "great coaching" that understands and incorporates the skill development into every practice. Its about the practice, not the games.

Sorry to do this to everyone but here are some more quotes.

Quote: "It is common knowledge that the Russians have a 6 to 1 practice to game ratio....and actually do not play serious games until they are twelve years old. Skills and creative, non-threatening scrimmage is a focus...interesting to note that about one half of each session was spent on blue line 3 on 3 games, full of moves and plays we would never allow a 7 year old Mite try to perform in a league game"

Some bullets from a study published by Al Bloomer and Mark Tabrum of USA Hockey after visiting Russia in 2008:

Russia Coaching Program:
The Russian coaching education system is extensive and demanding.
• All coaches must go through a rigorous educational process. They must first obtain a sports degree from an accredited university. After receiving this degree, coaches spend a year attaining a coaching degree specific to the sport they are coaching. Coaches spend time in the classroom and are given practical experience by coaching with two separate teams during this year of hockey-specific training. This theory and practical experience totals 500 hours. Most Russian coaches are former players. Coaches are required to have skating ability and goaltender coaches receive additional specialized training.
• The top/best coaches teach at the entry levels (6, 7 & 8 year olds).
• In some clubs a coach will move vertically through the system with the same birth year. In other clubs the coaches will stay at the same birth year level for up to 10 years.
• Coaches within the club work together. The program is designed for vertical development – moving players to the next level within the club. Standardized curriculum/philosophy allows for smooth transition and players are prepared for the next level. The primary objective is to prepare players for the parent professional club team.
• Players practice on ice a minimum of five times per week. Each practice lasts from 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, players from age 8-12 will have three off ice training sessions per week. Older players will have five off ice training sessions per week. At about age 12-14, weights are added to the off ice training program. Off ice training is very important in Russian hockey.
• The primary objective of each program is to develop players for the parent professional team. A secondary objective is to develop players for the national teams. Winning at the older ages (16 and older) is considered but is not a primary objective. A 17-year-old is eligible to play in the top professional league.
• The practices we observed for the 5-8 year-olds worked on fundamental skills. Specific drills, requiring multiple skills, were run for long periods of time (15 to 30 minutes) and emphasized repetition. The overall pace was moderate. The coach gave verbal instruction and occasionally stopped practice for demonstration. We saw practices at this level where a player had a puck on his stick for the entire session. Puck possession and puck protection are high priorities in Russian hockey.
• Practices overall focus on the individual skills of the player not the team concept of North American hockey. One specific practice we observed had players skating around tires on one end of the rink. The other end had players stick-handling pucks through and around metal tri-pods. Players in the middle of the ice were put in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, and 1 vs 3 situations.
• Tactics and systems are not introduced in Russian hockey until age 14.

The Philosophical change with USA Hockey has a lot to do with studies like this.

If our players were developing all along, we would be riddled with skilled players that play heads up hockey and checking would be a non issue. This thread would not need to exist.

Most skilled players are developing outside of the team practice because most team practices do not develop skills. The good thing here in our great state is that there are a good number of local options for skill development for those players that want to excel in their skills. Make no mistake that most of the top players in your association attend those options during the season and/or off season.

Until coaches see the light and start to follow the lead of the best practices we will continue to be behind the curve. CHECKING OR NO CHECKING.

[dangle_snipe]

Some great points made in this thread. I can't agree more with the fact that kids don't develop during games. If USA hockey wants more development institute a practice to game ratio. Practicing two days a week is tough to develop hockey players.

When I was growing up I would say 90 % of development was done at the OUTDOOR rink. Weather it was playing 7 on 7 shinny (not much room) or just working on your shot or stick handling. Today I can watch a pewee or squirt practice and can tell which kids go to the rink after school everyday and which kids are playing X box.

The outdoor ice has been supplemented with more skill specific camps etc, but I still think the best bang for the buck is playing at the outdoor.

[TheSiouxSuck]

I find it hard to believe the "skill development" argument by removing checking because those kids that are supposedly developing skills are lacking perhaps the most important skill it takes to play at higher level: KEEPING YOUR HEAD UP!

I coach at the Bantam Level and its a herculean task trying to get kids who have not yet learned to keep their head up to do so. You dont see the "blow up" hit at the peewee level because most players lack the speed/size/weight/strength/timing to make such a hit. At the Bantam level there are several players on many teams that have those attributes and its going to be a VERY rough year in two years when that first "no check" group of peewee's arrives ready to toe drag the world...

[Stripes2011]

KEEPING YOU HEAD UP, affects open ice hits. Not checking from Behind.

[TheSiouxSuck]

KEEPING YOU HEAD UP, affects open ice hits. Not checking from Behind.

There's checking from behind at all levels of the game... I'm not sure what your point is?

[SECoach]

I won't quote any posts here, because its too difficult to pick one.

The prior attempt to change body contact at pee wees was done so without much thought, reasoning, research or training. This decision was well researched and thought out. There is also significant training time and dollars invested this time around. There is also a strong network of people in place to monitor, assist, and educate coaches in best practices. Hard to compare this time with that time.

Injury prevention was a side companion to the true purpose, which is enhanced skill development. Safety, and keeping "scaredy cats" in the game, is far from the reason it was imposed. Only time will tell if is actually increases or decreases injuries. The dire predictions made here will not do the trick.

Although the sky was said to be falling, there has been no mass exodus of girls to pee wee hockey. In fact, there has been little to no affect.

Strictly enforcing rules does little to enhance skill development. It does improve safety, but does not allow a 12 year old childs brain to develop the finer points of the game, which is what they need to be doing at that age. Skills and tactics that are never learned in a full contact game at this age are what are needed to be developed. This can only be done successfully in an environment of limited body contact. While we long for the days of pond hockey, where individual skills were tried, learned, and honed, we forget that pond hockey has, and probably always will be played with limited body contact. Not much checking going on the rink I played on as a kid.

Hockey is not just played in the US or just in North America. Both the US and Canada, including the NHL, recognize that the game and its players are world wide. Attend an International Coaching Symposium or two and listen to or participate in the discussions between the "experts" on the game of hockey and how it is played around the world. Like it or not, the game of hockey has slowly changed to a highly skilled game. That's how it's played in the rest of the world, and the governing bodies of the sport in both the US and Canada recognize this and are on board. They have no choice, the highly skilled players are taking over.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school). This, while the people with squirts, mites, and below now, will become accustomed to the way the game will be played in the future. Highly skilled in both offensive and defensive play, with body contact used in proper proportion to the true needs of the game, and used for the right purpose. The people who are dedicated to the game will help the players adapt and evolve, even after their pee wees grow up. Watch some of the IIHF World Junior Tournament going on now. It will give you a good taste of things to come. Funny thing about evolution, is that it can't be stopped.

SECoach: Didn't re-read all of the posts from the last few days but don't remember anyone saying anything about scaredy cats??? Nor have I read anyone thumping their chests about how hockey is a tough guy's sport. Checking is a huge part of the game. Checking is the ultimate form of puck separation and the "good" coaches teach it that way. Eliminating the BS head hunting that goes on with stiffer penalties will go a long way to force coaches and players to stop that activity.

The skill aspect of the game has been evolving ever since the Europeans started coming over in bigger numbers in the later 80's and 90's. Hockey has already evolved skillwise in a big way and will continue to. The Europeans have brought more skill and forced players in North America to catch up and you see many more highly skilled players here in NA versus the past. At the same time The Europeans have increased their physical play to keep up with that aspect of the game. They have evolved as well.

I think the game is better than ever. Its highly skilled and highly physical. Since the interference rules started to be enforced the glutching and grabbing and hooking.... has all but gone away making the game even better.

BUT checking has not gone away and it won't and it is a huge part of them game. Skilled players can check great and avoid checks because they have great edges and see the ice "because of their skills", not because they didn't have checking at Pee Wee.

Once again, players do not develop their skills in games. The evidence is unrefutable. They develop the "finer points" as you say, or the "essential points" as I say, in practice if the coaches run efffective skills practices. You make it sound like the posters don't care about skills. Read my posts again. And last time I checked, coaches don't send kids out to crush a kid during a stickhandling drill. It's the same forum that can be used for non check small area games to allow the kids to develop their skills, in addition to checking small area games. This is where the skill development has to happen both with and without checking.

The good news is that most of the posters here won't care once their boys leave pee wee hockey. They will move on and then be entertained by low skilled, high contact hockey until their kids are finished with bantams (a few will play high school).

The bad news is that if anyone believes that banning checking is the fix for skill development you will not see any improvement in the game. The majority of kids will continue to be B or C players, with many B players playing A or highschool because there aren't enough A players to field the teams. Attend an international coaching clinic, or even a USA Hockey coaching clinic and you will see what the rest of the world is doing to improve skills. Its in the way they practice! You cannot develop holding the puck for 1.5 seconds a shift and making 6 passes a game.

SECoach - you like to refer to the Europeans and how "they do it". I do too! They are not more skilled because of checking or no checking because they don't develop the kids in games. Some don't even play "real" games until they are Pee Wees or later. They do it with "great coaching" that understands and incorporates the skill development into every practice. Its about the practice, not the games.

Sorry to do this to everyone but here are some more quotes.

Quote: "It is common knowledge that the Russians have a 6 to 1 practice to game ratio....and actually do not play serious games until they are twelve years old. Skills and creative, non-threatening scrimmage is a focus...interesting to note that about one half of each session was spent on blue line 3 on 3 games, full of moves and plays we would never allow a 7 year old Mite try to perform in a league game"

Some bullets from a study published by Al Bloomer and Mark Tabrum of USA Hockey after visiting Russia in 2008:

Russia Coaching Program:
The Russian coaching education system is extensive and demanding.
• All coaches must go through a rigorous educational process. They must first obtain a sports degree from an accredited university. After receiving this degree, coaches spend a year attaining a coaching degree specific to the sport they are coaching. Coaches spend time in the classroom and are given practical experience by coaching with two separate teams during this year of hockey-specific training. This theory and practical experience totals 500 hours. Most Russian coaches are former players. Coaches are required to have skating ability and goaltender coaches receive additional specialized training.
• The top/best coaches teach at the entry levels (6, 7 & 8 year olds).
• In some clubs a coach will move vertically through the system with the same birth year. In other clubs the coaches will stay at the same birth year level for up to 10 years.
• Coaches within the club work together. The program is designed for vertical development – moving players to the next level within the club. Standardized curriculum/philosophy allows for smooth transition and players are prepared for the next level. The primary objective is to prepare players for the parent professional club team.
• Players practice on ice a minimum of five times per week. Each practice lasts from 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, players from age 8-12 will have three off ice training sessions per week. Older players will have five off ice training sessions per week. At about age 12-14, weights are added to the off ice training program. Off ice training is very important in Russian hockey.
• The primary objective of each program is to develop players for the parent professional team. A secondary objective is to develop players for the national teams. Winning at the older ages (16 and older) is considered but is not a primary objective. A 17-year-old is eligible to play in the top professional league.
• The practices we observed for the 5-8 year-olds worked on fundamental skills. Specific drills, requiring multiple skills, were run for long periods of time (15 to 30 minutes) and emphasized repetition. The overall pace was moderate. The coach gave verbal instruction and occasionally stopped practice for demonstration. We saw practices at this level where a player had a puck on his stick for the entire session. Puck possession and puck protection are high priorities in Russian hockey.
• Practices overall focus on the individual skills of the player not the team concept of North American hockey. One specific practice we observed had players skating around tires on one end of the rink. The other end had players stick-handling pucks through and around metal tri-pods. Players in the middle of the ice were put in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2, and 1 vs 3 situations.
• Tactics and systems are not introduced in Russian hockey until age 14.

The Philosophical change with USA Hockey has a lot to do with studies like this.

If our players were developing all along, we would be riddled with skilled players that play heads up hockey and checking would be a non issue. This thread would not need to exist.

Most skilled players are developing outside of the team practice because most team practices do not develop skills. The good thing here in our great state is that there are a good number of local options for skill development for those players that want to excel in their skills. Make no mistake that most of the top players in your association attend those options during the season and/or off season.

Until coaches see the light and start to follow the lead of the best practices we will continue to be behind the curve. CHECKING OR NO CHECKING.

Couldn't agree more......except for the last 4 words.

[hockeyfan74]

SECoach

You said that allowing kids at the Pee-wee level to hold onto the puck longer is a good thing - they learn to become more skilled. If that was the true reason USA Hockey removed checking then that is contradictory to the cross-ice mite games they implemented. Why do we play cross-ice - is it not to prevent the 1 or 2 players from going coast to coast and get all players on the ice more touches.

Now at Pee-wee's we should view it as a good thing to have 1 or 2 players go coast to coast? Seems like we are going backwards to me.

You seem to talk a lot about how hockey is played in other parts of the world. The main reason we were/are behind the rest of the world is more due to the lack of ice time our kids in the US are getting. SnowedIn showed that in Russia they are on the ice a MINIMUM of 5 time per week and that is for 1 1/2 to 2 hours per time. On top of the on-ice they add 3 to 5 days off-ice training depending on their age. Neither my squirt nor pee-wee have ever seen that amount of ice time or off ice training in a season - not even close.

Over the last few years AAA hockey has become more of a factor. Whether you are a fan of it or not - what it does is it gives our players more opportunities for ice time if they choose to participate.

Ice time is a big factor in player development and at least where my boys play they are not on the ice nearly as much as the example for the Russians.

My opinion based on everything I have read - people I have consulted including some ex-NHLers - and most importantly what I have witnessed in my son's 2nd year vs. his 1st year of pee-wee's is USA hockey made a premature decision that is not best for the overall development of youth hockey players.

[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.....................................................

Since your son moves to Bantams next year & will get the opportunity to check, why the big push to have checking reinstated at the Pee Wee level next year?

To answer your question. My son played PWA's the past two season. He's a very young 7th grader this year which means he can choose to play one more year of PWA's if he wants to. I guess the rule change for checking is wishful thinking on our part. Next years group will be a lot stronger and will do much better in our district. So the fun factor will be there for him, but he's doing just fine with his progression over his young career. So we have a hard decision to make. Hold him back for fun factor or opt to play Bantams next year and take it on the chin with a very weak group of players. Our mistake was to put him in school early.

[observer]

Now, as your son moves on, have him play with his class. After two years of bantam high school is next and the players want to play with their classmates.

[goldy313]

Get rid of fair play points and start calling the game correctly. It will take a season or two of adjustment but the adjustment will occur. Zero tolerance for coaches abusing officials, zero tolerance for abusive fans, and evaluate, instruct, and correct officials often (video is so easy to distribute today) For High school we see a video each year of good calls and incorrcet calls, its very useful.

All of the other nonsense USA Hockey is doing is just delaying what is inevitiable.

[BadgerBob82]

I continue to read predictions that PW's are going to get killed in Bantams because of the checking rule? I just don't see that. The good players in PW will be good players in Bantam. The kids that will get killed in Bantams would be getting killed this year in PW. There can be no question the offensive and defensive skills are being improved at the PW level. Predicting future injury is silly. I've used to hear year after year that the skilled little squirts will be nothing in PW when there's checking. And funny, they turned into skilled PW players every time.

Those that continue to predict the sky is falling because of the no-check PW continue to show how little they know about hockey.

[Deep Breath]

Badger bob: gonna disagree with you on a couple of points. Skills are not being improved. Trying to toe-drag 4 opponents on one rush up the ice is not improving your skills; hockey is a team game which means passing. I have watched too many PWA and PWB games this winter to count and the passing at both levels is borderline embarassing, simply because the kids know they can't be hit, at least not legally. Defensive play has regressed as well. When a forward tries to go up the ice and take the wall on a defenseman, normally, that defenseman will line him up and plant a shoulder into that forward's chest, removing him from the puck. Now, more often than not, the defenseman is simply reaching with his stick becuase he knows very well that if there is some kind of contact, especially if it is "loud" contact, the ref's arm is going up. Also, don't worry about the skilled players going from PW to Bantam next year. Worry about the mid-level or lower level PW who skates with his head down because he will be on the bantam ice next year and some 2nd-year bantam who has 50+ pounds on him lines him up in the neutral zone. That PW, who hasn't had to worry about getting hit this year, is going to be in for quite a shock, no pun intended.

[Shinbone_News]

This just in: Passing the puck is always faster than skating the puck, regardless of whether checking is allowed or not. Good teams and players move the puck, bad teams and players don't. At all levels.

I agree with BadgerBob, and find it hilarious that this bored is the only place all the luddites, cranks and golden-agers congregate to whine about change.

Look folks, carbon sticks happened. Flop goaltending is now the norm, not the exception. There is no more two-line pass. The US sucked at world juniors.

Change is hard!!!! But everything will be just fine, and there's a very slim chance that hockey will survive in spite of it all.

[SECoach]

Badger bob: gonna disagree with you on a couple of points. Skills are not being improved. Trying to toe-drag 4 opponents on one rush up the ice is not improving your skills; hockey is a team game which means passing. I have watched too many PWA and PWB games this winter to count and the passing at both levels is borderline embarassing, simply because the kids know they can't be hit, at least not legally. Defensive play has regressed as well. When a forward tries to go up the ice and take the wall on a defenseman, normally, that defenseman will line him up and plant a shoulder into that forward's chest, removing him from the puck. Now, more often than not, the defenseman is simply reaching with his stick becuase he knows very well that if there is some kind of contact, especially if it is "loud" contact, the ref's arm is going up. Also, don't worry about the skilled players going from PW to Bantam next year. Worry about the mid-level or lower level PW who skates with his head down because he will be on the bantam ice next year and some 2nd-year bantam who has 50+ pounds on him lines him up in the neutral zone. That PW, who hasn't had to worry about getting hit this year, is going to be in for quite a shock, no pun intended.

I re read my posts just to be sure, but I don't believe I ever said Pee wee player should go coast to coast every time to become better. They should move the puck, but they should move the puck out of reading the game, not out of fear of getting crushed. This only promotes getting rid of it, rather than making a good play. They are young, and they need a moment to see the play and become good at recognizing it, and then EXECUTING the play. Are there coaches that are allowing and even promoting coast to coast with 3 toe drags? I'm sure there are. It's not what I'm seeing as a whole. I'm seeing much better puck movement, and yes, some holding on too long, than I've seen in the past. This too will take time, and I believe the powers that be are committed to seeing this through.

Also, to the poster that states game do nothing for development: There is no one at USA Hockey saying games do NOTHING for development. Too many games hurts development, but games certainly provide an opportunity that even the best practice cannot. Not better, but another piece of the puzzle. Even at mite, the recommended number of games is up to 15 CROSS ICE games. These are game whether cross or full ice.

[luckyEPDad]

I find it funny there are complaints about the number of passes going down. How can it go down from near zero? Most of the PW games I've watched over the years had one pass breaking out of the zone, skate two or three strides to cross the red line and then dump and chase. If you are really lucky you may see a pass in the neutral zone. Anything, even selfish toe dragging fools going end to end, has to be an improvement over that. One thing Minnesota players should be really good at is battling in the corners.

As for heads up play, you can't play hockey with your head down. What we have now (or recently) is head up play because nobody ever carries the puck. I can skate head up without the puck, so I can't imagine it is too difficult for anyone above mites. Even in PWA tournaments between good teams I rarely saw players skating the puck with their head up. Now that they have the opportunity to do so they may learn how.

[SnowedIn]

Badger bob: gonna disagree with you on a couple of points. Skills are not being improved. Trying to toe-drag 4 opponents on one rush up the ice is not improving your skills; hockey is a team game which means passing. I have watched too many PWA and PWB games this winter to count and the passing at both levels is borderline embarassing, simply because the kids know they can't be hit, at least not legally. Defensive play has regressed as well. When a forward tries to go up the ice and take the wall on a defenseman, normally, that defenseman will line him up and plant a shoulder into that forward's chest, removing him from the puck. Now, more often than not, the defenseman is simply reaching with his stick becuase he knows very well that if there is some kind of contact, especially if it is "loud" contact, the ref's arm is going up. Also, don't worry about the skilled players going from PW to Bantam next year. Worry about the mid-level or lower level PW who skates with his head down because he will be on the bantam ice next year and some 2nd-year bantam who has 50+ pounds on him lines him up in the neutral zone. That PW, who hasn't had to worry about getting hit this year, is going to be in for quite a shock, no pun intended.

I re read my posts just to be sure, but I don't believe I ever said Pee wee player should go coast to coast every time to become better. They should move the puck, but they should move the puck out of reading the game, not out of fear of getting crushed. This only promotes getting rid of it, rather than making a good play. They are young, and they need a moment to see the play and become good at recognizing it, and then EXECUTING the play. Are there coaches that are allowing and even promoting coast to coast with 3 toe drags? I'm sure there are. It's not what I'm seeing as a whole. I'm seeing much better puck movement, and yes, some holding on too long, than I've seen in the past. This too will take time, and I believe the powers that be are committed to seeing this through.

Also, to the poster that states game do nothing for development: There is no one at USA Hockey saying games do NOTHING for development. Too many games hurts development, but games certainly provide an opportunity that even the best practice cannot. Not better, but another piece of the puzzle. Even at mite, the recommended number of games is up to 15 CROSS ICE games. These are game whether cross or full ice.

SE why do you insist on continuing this cycle with snipits of what was written. If you are referring to my posts, then I said a lot more than "Nothing". I actually said that the development is about 1:75 or worse (which is close to nothing) than a "well-run" skills practice and provided a hell of a lot of data, quotes and research that supports this. To help you understand, the theme in my posts was that players must develop their skills through 100's and 1000's of repetitions of a properly taught technique. The Europeans train this way and the best practices in NA train this way. I also said that small area games with and without checking help players to develop these skills by applying them in game like situations. Small games are infinitely better than full ice structured games because there are no offsides, faceoffs, whistles, and coupled with the small area, increase the number of touches and opportunities to develop 10 fold over "real" games. The Russians do not play real full ice games until 12 etc etc etc... As for your comment on cross ice games, they are small area games if you haven't figured that out.

As for USA Hockey, the new coaching material is 100% behind totally revamping the way coaches coach in this country from BS systems, positioning and strategy at the 12U levels to 75%+ skills training give or take for these ages. My point is that this is the way to develop players not games.

If USA Hockey made no changes but eliminate checking, then there would be virtually no increase in skills and its easy to argue both ways on that. Games are a peice of the developmental puzzle - yes. Equivalent to about 1 out of 75 peices of the puzzle.

This is not just my opinion. It is a well known fact. If you want me to provide you with quotes, based on well documented and researched studies from Russia, Sweden, Canada and USA that say exactly my point I'd be happy to.

Lastly let me respond to a quote of yours directly with a quote I already posted:

Also, to the poster that states game do nothing for development: There is "NO ONE" at USA Hockey saying games do NOTHING for development.

And here is quote from "SOMEONE" AT USA HOCKEY
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.

[nahc]

Um, has anyone noticed how much more checking is utilized now in Europe? The NHL players certainly have picked up checking and just look at the last Olympic games............the Swedes, Finns, etc are all checking a LOT more than they were years ago.........its part of the game.......and should be taught as young as possible, even at the mite level where kids are small enough, slow enough, and have less distance to fall.....in my opinion of course.

Funny how the skilled players have made it this far with checking.......and survived........

[edgeless2]

Game situation tonight. Opposing forward going into offensive corner beats our D man to puck. His back is towards our player, he jukes one way, peels off to the other way. Our D man peels the opposite way of the juke, opposing forward very good skater comes directly back into our D man's line. Our D man not the most skilled skater has nowhere to go but straight, attempts to pull up but too close to the boards. Checking from behind. 2 and 10. Absolutely the right call, but, no intent and not enough skating skill to avoid the collision. Is this the players's fault? The coaches fault? Fact is it probably happens more than anyone wants to admit. I guess my point is there really is no way to regulate a situation like this. I do believe that this is more common than most people believe. I also believe when you have less skilled players, this will happen more often. No intent, not malicious, what is the answer?

[SECoach]

Badger bob: gonna disagree with you on a couple of points. Skills are not being improved. Trying to toe-drag 4 opponents on one rush up the ice is not improving your skills; hockey is a team game which means passing. I have watched too many PWA and PWB games this winter to count and the passing at both levels is borderline embarassing, simply because the kids know they can't be hit, at least not legally. Defensive play has regressed as well. When a forward tries to go up the ice and take the wall on a defenseman, normally, that defenseman will line him up and plant a shoulder into that forward's chest, removing him from the puck. Now, more often than not, the defenseman is simply reaching with his stick becuase he knows very well that if there is some kind of contact, especially if it is "loud" contact, the ref's arm is going up. Also, don't worry about the skilled players going from PW to Bantam next year. Worry about the mid-level or lower level PW who skates with his head down because he will be on the bantam ice next year and some 2nd-year bantam who has 50+ pounds on him lines him up in the neutral zone. That PW, who hasn't had to worry about getting hit this year, is going to be in for quite a shock, no pun intended.

I re read my posts just to be sure, but I don't believe I ever said Pee wee player should go coast to coast every time to become better. They should move the puck, but they should move the puck out of reading the game, not out of fear of getting crushed. This only promotes getting rid of it, rather than making a good play. They are young, and they need a moment to see the play and become good at recognizing it, and then EXECUTING the play. Are there coaches that are allowing and even promoting coast to coast with 3 toe drags? I'm sure there are. It's not what I'm seeing as a whole. I'm seeing much better puck movement, and yes, some holding on too long, than I've seen in the past. This too will take time, and I believe the powers that be are committed to seeing this through.

Also, to the poster that states game do nothing for development: There is no one at USA Hockey saying games do NOTHING for development. Too many games hurts development, but games certainly provide an opportunity that even the best practice cannot. Not better, but another piece of the puzzle. Even at mite, the recommended number of games is up to 15 CROSS ICE games. These are game whether cross or full ice.

SE why do you insist on continuing this cycle with snipits of what was written. If you are referring to my posts, then I said a lot more than "Nothing". I actually said that the development is about 1:75 or worse (which is close to nothing) than a "well-run" skills practice and provided a hell of a lot of data, quotes and research that supports this. To help you understand, the theme in my posts was that players must develop their skills through 100's and 1000's of repetitions of a properly taught technique. The Europeans train this way and the best practices in NA train this way. I also said that small area games with and without checking help players to develop these skills by applying them in game like situations. Small games are infinitely better than full ice structured games because there are no offsides, faceoffs, whistles, and coupled with the small area, increase the number of touches and opportunities to develop 10 fold over "real" games. The Russians do not play real full ice games until 12 etc etc etc... As for your comment on cross ice games, they are small area games if you haven't figured that out.

As for USA Hockey, the new coaching material is 100% behind totally revamping the way coaches coach in this country from BS systems, positioning and strategy at the 12U levels to 75%+ skills training give or take for these ages. My point is that this is the way to develop players not games.

If USA Hockey made no changes but eliminate checking, then there would be virtually no increase in skills and its easy to argue both ways on that. Games are a peice of the developmental puzzle - yes. Equivalent to about 1 out of 75 peices of the puzzle.

This is not just my opinion. It is a well known fact. If you want me to provide you with quotes, based on well documented and researched studies from Russia, Sweden, Canada and USA that say exactly my point I'd be happy to.

Lastly let me respond to a quote of yours directly with a quote I already posted:

Also, to the poster that states game do nothing for development: There is "NO ONE" at USA Hockey saying games do NOTHING for development.

And here is quote from "SOMEONE" AT USA HOCKEY
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.

God, this is like talking to my wife........so after several loooonnnggg. posts, explaining to me, all the things I agree with and believe deeply......what's your point?

Is it that since NO, NADA, ZERO development happens Pee Wee hockey games, we may as well allow checking? I simply think that arguement is ridiculous. You can quote the virtues of USA Hockey recomendations paragraph after paragraph as gospel, except for the body contact rules. I guess if you feel that way, I think you should give the body contact rules a chance and see what happens. Oh yeah, again, what's your point? I disagree with you on one item. The new body contact rules will help our players be better, you disagree. I don't see the need for you to repost hundreds of facts that I don't disagree with. But......feel free I guess.