HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

from MN Hockey Youth Council Report: share your pro's and con's
keep in mind this is in a sense meeting minutes at a USA Hockey meeting:

"Peewee checking was another topic of discussion and will be a proposed rule change for 2011/2012 season. Minnesota should be considering the issue and possibly survey our customers to get their feedback. One train of thought is to go more like the girls/women’s programs where there is contact but not full out checking. Another thought is to start them checking earlier. The issue really comes down to; What age is most appropriate to teach and start checking?"

I'm not too worried about full checking as long as they move the body contact ages down. Checking at PW is fine, but if it went up to Bantam and the younger games were still physical it wouldn't bother me.

council member retired wrote:from MN Hockey Youth Council Report: share your pro's and con's
keep in mind this is in a sense meeting minutes at a USA Hockey meeting:

"Peewee checking was another topic of discussion and will be a proposed rule change for 2011/2012 season. Minnesota should be considering the issue and possibly survey our customers to get their feedback. One train of thought is to go more like the girls/women’s programs where there is contact but not full out checking. Another thought is to start them checking earlier. The issue really comes down to; What age is most appropriate to teach and start checking?"

I personally think that Peewees is a good time to start. If we started any later, bantams is where you get extreme size differences, which could be bad for kids just learning how to check. I believe in Canada they start checking much earlier and they seam to do fine

codemanh wrote:I personally think that Peewees is a good time to start. If we started any later, bantams is where you get extreme size differences, which could be bad for kids just learning how to check. I believe in Canada they start checking much earlier and they seam to do fine

They don't. Most of Canada starts in PeeWee and in Quebec they start in Bantam. The Province of Saskatchewan participated in a project where checking was introduced at the Atom lvel (squirt here). I coached through this project and my oldest boy played through it.

Unfortunately, it did nothing but cause an earlier rash of head injuries so the project was scrapped after 2 years.

In Quebec where they hold off until Bantam they have seen a large increase in player retention through to Bantam with many citing the lack of contact as the reason they stay in the game. In fact, even Bantam Hockey in Queec at the lower levels is still non-contact.

The American & Canadian Medical Association both advise checking is better left until Midget but this will never be adopted by the hockey community - at least not at the higher levels.

Others advocate single birth year hockey or 12 month windows, as opposed to 24, as a means (Bantam Minor, Bantam Major etc.) to decrease head injuries and other serious injuries in youth hockey.

Injuries spike at the Bantam level, which the medical community says is due to the extreme size and strength disparities at the bantam age groups - particulary in 24 month (2 year gap) age classifications.

Personally, I don't mind checking at pee wee, but I prefer to keep my kids in single year hockey through puberty to minimize size/strength disparities and allow them to develop their skills and passion for the game. So far, so good.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

codemanh wrote:I personally think that Peewees is a good time to start. If we started any later, bantams is where you get extreme size differences, which could be bad for kids just learning how to check. I believe in Canada they start checking much earlier and they seam to do fine

They don't. Most of Canada starts in PeeWee and in Quebec they start in Bantam. The Province of Saskatchewan participated in a project where checking was introduced at the Atom lvel (squirt here). I coached through this project and my oldest boy played through it.

Unfortunately, it did nothing but cause an earlier rash of head injuries so the project was scrapped after 2 years.

In Quebec where they hold off until Bantam they have seen a large increase in player retention through to Bantam with many citing the lack of contact as the reason they stay in the game. In fact, even Bantam Hockey in Queec at the lower levels is still non-contact.

The American & Canadian Medical Association both advise checking is better left until Midget but this will never be adopted by the hockey community - at least not at the higher levels.

Others advocate single birth year hockey or 12 month windows, as opposed to 24, as a means (Bantam Minor, Bantam Major etc.) to decrease head injuries and other serious injuries in youth hockey.

Injuries spike at the Bantam level, which the medical community says is due to the extreme size and strength disparities at the bantam age groups - particulary in 24 month (2 year gap) age classifications.

Personally, I don't mind checking at pee wee, but I prefer to keep my kids in single year hockey through puberty to minimize size/strength disparities and allow them to develop their skills and passion for the game. So far, so good.

I stand corrected. I thought they started at Squirt, but i guess not.

The Québec International Pee Wee Hockey Tournament is considered the most prestigious Pee Wee tournament in North America. It is a no check tournament.

I would be OK with it...the problem with checking is that it seems as if it's not being taught correctly. The object of a check is to separate the player from the puck....not to separate the player's head from their body.

There are too many kids looking for that "knock-out" open ice hit they saw the night before on SportsCentre.

I'm all for physical hockey, but I'm seeing too many head injuries as of late because of players not knowing how to hit the right way.

muckandgrind wrote:I would be OK with it...the problem with checking is that it seems as if it's not being taught correctly. The object of a check is to separate the player from the puck....not to separate the player's head from their body.

There are too many kids looking for that "knock-out" open ice hit they saw the night before on SportsCentre.

I'm all for physical hockey, but I'm seeing too many head injuries as of late because of players not knowing how to hit the right way.

I totally agree with this, but it's not just the kids. There are plenty of coaches and parents that encourage the "knock out" hit as well. It seemed like every game we had last year someone was being hurt by a boarding or checking from behind.

In my opinion, checking needs to be taught as an individual skill, just like shooting, passing and skating. I don't think checking is taught very well because coaches have so much to teach relative to the amount of icetime they have. If nothing else, I really wish coaches would take a couple of dryland sessions and dedicate them to proper checking technique. USA Hockey has a pretty good video of off-ice drills for checking if anyone is interested.

http://www.usahockey.com/USANTDP/defaul ... &ID=233678

Muck, wait until high school. Love the parents yelling “hit him.” Even coaches on occasion. Shows a total lack of understanding.

Checking is dangerous because the potential checker can be left behind creating an odd man rush the other way. Kids do it because it's easier than chasing.

Ok, get your rocks, stone, etc ready to throw!!! I think checking is a HUGE part of our great sport. I'm not talking about the stick up to the head and driving the player into the boards check. I'm talking about the physical play that truly seperates the players. Once great squirt players sometimes do not pan out due to size or their physical toughness to recieve and deliver a good check. My thoughts is that checking should be allowed and taught at the Squirt level, yes the Squirt level. At this age there is not such a huge physical difference between kids, on a whole. This would lead to the LEARNING aspect of checking. Checking also becomes part of the game at an early age and, as we know, kids readily adapt. By the time these skaters are Pee Wees and Bantams, they are already experienced with this part of the game and I truly believe injuries at the older ages would be reduced........I read where they tried this in Sask but stopped after 2 years due to head injuries. I'd love to see the data from this example and also the Journal Article from the AMA concerning age of checking in hockey.........should be an interesting read and would love to dive into the article a lot deeper.......please post a link to the article if available..........

Thanks!!!

nahc wrote:Ok, get your rocks, stone, etc ready to throw!!! I think checking is a HUGE part of our great sport. I'm not talking about the stick up to the head and driving the player into the boards check. I'm talking about the physical play that truly seperates the players. Once great squirt players sometimes do not pan out due to size or their physical toughness to recieve and deliver a good check. My thoughts is that checking should be allowed and taught at the Squirt level, yes the Squirt level. At this age there is not such a huge physical difference between kids, on a whole. This would lead to the LEARNING aspect of checking. Checking also becomes part of the game at an early age and, as we know, kids readily adapt. By the time these skaters are Pee Wees and Bantams, they are already experienced with this part of the game and I truly believe injuries at the older ages would be reduced........I read where they tried this in Sask but stopped after 2 years due to head injuries. I'd love to see the data from this example and also the Journal Article from the AMA concerning age of checking in hockey.........should be an interesting read and would love to dive into the article a lot deeper.......please post a link to the article if available..........

Thanks!!!

I've actually read youth hockey has the lowest incident rate of injuries compared to any other youth sport. And has by far less head injuries than sports like soccer.

nahc wrote:Ok, get your rocks, stone, etc ready to throw!!! I think checking is a HUGE part of our great sport. I'm not talking about the stick up to the head and driving the player into the boards check. I'm talking about the physical play that truly seperates the players. Once great squirt players sometimes do not pan out due to size or their physical toughness to recieve and deliver a good check. My thoughts is that checking should be allowed and taught at the Squirt level, yes the Squirt level. At this age there is not such a huge physical difference between kids, on a whole. This would lead to the LEARNING aspect of checking. Checking also becomes part of the game at an early age and, as we know, kids readily adapt. By the time these skaters are Pee Wees and Bantams, they are already experienced with this part of the game and I truly believe injuries at the older ages would be reduced........I read where they tried this in Sask but stopped after 2 years due to head injuries. I'd love to see the data from this example and also the Journal Article from the AMA concerning age of checking in hockey.........should be an interesting read and would love to dive into the article a lot deeper.......please post a link to the article if available..........

Thanks!!!

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with checking, per se. My issue with with the head hunting and running players into the boards.

If kids can be taught to cleanly check a player and use more discretion about when to hit, I'm OK with it. What I mean by "more discretion", is that I see many hits that aren't necessary. You don't need to destroy a kid on the open ice just because he has his head down. You can knock him off the puck without knocking his head off.

We need to quit glorifying the "bone crushing" checks and teach the players to have a little more respect for each other on the ice. I hear some people pine for the "good 'ol days" when players were "tougher"....the problem with that is back in the good ol' days, players had more respect for each other than they do now. You didn't see NEARLY has many head shots and boarding situations.

Maybe it's because the players have better protective gear, we feel as though the physicality can be ramped up. This is wrong, concussions are on the rise....the best helmet in the world won't competely prevent head injuries.

muckandgrind wrote:

nahc wrote:Ok, get your rocks, stone, etc ready to throw!!! I think checking is a HUGE part of our great sport. I'm not talking about the stick up to the head and driving the player into the boards check. I'm talking about the physical play that truly seperates the players. Once great squirt players sometimes do not pan out due to size or their physical toughness to recieve and deliver a good check. My thoughts is that checking should be allowed and taught at the Squirt level, yes the Squirt level. At this age there is not such a huge physical difference between kids, on a whole. This would lead to the LEARNING aspect of checking. Checking also becomes part of the game at an early age and, as we know, kids readily adapt. By the time these skaters are Pee Wees and Bantams, they are already experienced with this part of the game and I truly believe injuries at the older ages would be reduced........I read where they tried this in Sask but stopped after 2 years due to head injuries. I'd love to see the data from this example and also the Journal Article from the AMA concerning age of checking in hockey.........should be an interesting read and would love to dive into the article a lot deeper.......please post a link to the article if available..........

Thanks!!!

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with checking, per se. My issue with with the head hunting and running players into the boards.

If kids can be taught to cleanly check a player and use more discretion about when to hit, I'm OK with it. What I mean by "more discretion", is that I see many hits that aren't necessary. You don't need to destroy a kid on the open ice just because he has his head down. You can knock him off the puck without knocking his head off.

We need to quit glorifying the "bone crushing" checks and teach the players to have a little more respect for each other on the ice. I hear some people pine for the "good 'ol days" when players were "tougher"....the problem with that is back in the good ol' days, players had more respect for each other than they do now. You didn't see NEARLY has many head shots and boarding situations.

Maybe it's because the players have better protective gear, we feel as though the physicality can be ramped up. This is wrong, concussions are on the rise....the best helmet in the world won't competely prevent head injuries.

I agree with everything you just said

I would be ineterested in seeing any data they have on squirts checking. I agree with nahc that squirts may be the time to introduce it because the size differences are much less and the big kids don't have man muscles yet so they are still, on average, slow.

But, that being said the same kids who think it's okay to trip at squirts, think it's okay to headhunt at peewees, and now you add testosterone to their meanness.

I like the idea of teaching checking off-ice because there they can have good instruction regarding hand placement and keeping those hands low.

My observation last year was that prior to Christmas each Bantam team had 2 or 3 kids on the bench hurt . AFter Christmas they seemed to settle down and play hockey until the playoffs.Whatever they can do to settle down the first month and a half of the season would be an improvement. The same goes for PeeWees but the settling down isn't so much, they still want to hit anything that moves.

I'd love to see the data from this example and also the Journal Article from the AMA concerning age of checking in hockey.........should be an interesting read and would love to dive into the article a lot deeper.......please post a link to the article if available..........

Here is a link to the abstract for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report. They recommend age 15 or older to begin checking, which is partially based on the greatest size variation being among 14-15 year old skaters. If you want to 'dive deeper' there are some links at the bottom of the article that I found interesting. One showed the greatest risk of injury is to 15-17 years old, exactly when the AAP wants checking to start.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;105/3/657

(note: there is also a full text pdf in the upper right hand corner of the link)

Injuries will increase at whichever level checking is introduced. It's common sense. Along with all the physical evidence outlined in the article and the anecdotal evidence summarized above by the guy from Canada, another reason to wait before introducing is the lack of maturity at the younger ages. Many will headhunt to compensate for lack of talent.

Also, with the increase in injuries, remember that injured players do not play and won't be getting any better as they sit. There is plenty hockey to be taught to the young kids without worrying about checking in peewees.

The focus should be on improving the instruction at the older ages when it is introduced.

NAHC: I found the article from the Journal of the American Medical Association that you mentioned above. It was published in June and basically says that a PeeWee kid that plays in a checking league (Alberta) is 3.26 times more likely to suffer a significant injury than a non-checking PeeWee skater (Quebec). By eliminating checking, there would be 2.84 less injuries per 1,000 hours of PeeWee hockey. Here is the best summary of the article that I could find (for free).
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/0 ... oncussions

Cooper 26: I think you are absolutely correct that injuries jump up the year that checking is introduced regardless of age group. Unfortunately, the study fails to measure if Alberta has fewer injuries in Bantams than Quebec (even the authours admit this shortcoming). I would suspect that Quebec injuries jump at the Bantam level, meaning that it matters less WHEN checking is introduced but HOW it is introduced.

While researching, I ran across two interesting statistics. First, 46% of the severe injuries from body checks occur when a skater is hit from behind and into the boards. Second, the JAMA article says there was NO difference in injuries between checking and non-checking teams during practice hours. Putting the two observations together, if we can eliminate checks from behind into the boards during games, it would eliminate almost half of all serious body checking injuries at the PeeWee level!! Maybe a check from behind into the boards should result in a longer visit to the penalty box? Seems a bit easier to implement than changing the checking age.

Yes, it matters less when than how, IF the numbers of injuries is the ONLY thing you're worried about. The study summarized above also noted that more kids stay in hockey longer when the introduction of checking comes later. That's something MN hockey should look at very seriously.

I would also argue that time lost to injury per player would have a greater impact on each kid's development during peewees than it would bantams. Squirts learn to skate and shoot. Peewees learn to pass and understand the game. Bantams learn to hit and hone their skills. The system actually works well in this regard - other than yes, the over all quality of instruction for checking, could be improved.

And I would still maintain, as a general rule, peewees (and some coaches) lack the emotional maturity for checking. More big clumsy kids compensating for lack of speed and/or talent giving more blatantly bad hits, causing more frustration and anger amongst kids, coaches, parents.

For many years, hockey has worked at trying to reduce the number of hits from behind. They're all good efforts but there has been limited success. I don't think telling 10 year olds to "go out there and use your body! - Hit 'em!" is going to improve that situation.

I see lots of potential pain for very little gain.

(12 mos. groups vs. 24 mos. group is something I've never really thought about, but if it's at all feasible, it sounds like that's a direction that might provide an opportunity to reconsider introducing checking at an earlier age.)

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with checking, per se. My issue with with the head hunting and running players into the boards.

If kids can be taught to cleanly check a player and use more discretion about when to hit, I'm OK with it. What I mean by "more discretion", is that I see many hits that aren't necessary. You don't need to destroy a kid on the open ice just because he has his head down. You can knock him off the puck without knocking his head off.

We need to quit glorifying the "bone crushing" checks and teach the players to have a little more respect for each other on the ice. I hear some people pine for the "good 'ol days" when players were "tougher"....the problem with that is back in the good ol' days, players had more respect for each other than they do now. You didn't see NEARLY has many head shots and boarding situations.

Maybe it's because the players have better protective gear, we feel as though the physicality can be ramped up. This is wrong, concussions are on the rise....the best helmet in the world won't competely prevent head injuries.

_____________________________________________________________
TAKE IT ANOTHER STEP:

How about revising the rules to eliminate the head hunting and bone crushing checks –

Educate/reeducate players and coaches to understand that checking is as an excellent tactic to separate a player from the puck WITHOUT the checker taking themselves out of the play.

Revising the rules combined with enforcement of those rules, has worked to greatly reduce "clutch and grab play". Overly aggressive checking could be controlled with a similar strategy.