HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Please add a short comment....
I supposrt NO CHECKING because....
I oppose NO CHECKING because...

I will take these responses to the Minnesota Hockey Board meeting.

I have watched two great kids get concussions in the last week, one at the bantam level and one at the peewee level. Both were BAD hits, both were called for penalties, neither as strongly as they could have been. Bantam taken off on a stretcher, kid gets a 5 minute major. Yet I still believe that leaving checking until the Bantam level is worse. Can you just imagine Bantam tryouts, second year skaters just salivating at a chance to get at those silly pre-pubescent 1st years, and with not a ref in sight (or in many associations, a parent in sight), only evaluators who are to have no interaction with the kids. That's not how I want my youngest introduced to checking.

Too many kids will continue to skate with their heads down, no matter how good their coaching is, until they have been 'taught' by older kids the consequences of that action. That teaching isn't necessarily brutal and it isn't necessarily with intent to injure, those penalties need to be enforced.

I've saw behavior out of kids in my local association that if they were my kids, they'd get grounded. Like the Bertuzzi hit of years ago that just because it happened on the ice didn't mean it wasn't criminal the same goes for excessive or ill-timed force on the ice. Just because it happened during a game doesn't make it not part of my parental sphere. I yelled at my kid not to hit a much smaller kid this past weekend ( though I know he couldn't hear me). He did not hit the kid, he merely took the puck and skated up ice with it. Good job, and I told him so later. One of the other parents teased me about a toe pick and figure skates....I can take a joke but seriously we were up by many goals at that point, why would he hit the kid? because he could?

If refs ref and parents parent than our kids will learn that there are consequences to their behavior and it will be a lesson they can apply to all aspects of their life from that point forward. Adults should take back the game, not legislate it away. I know D2 kids pull back when they get to 2 penalties in a game, make it that way statewide, why give kids 5 chances to hurt someone. If they don't have self-control after 3 penalties when are they going to develop it?

The earlier they learn how, the better they will become at doing it properly, similair to learning how to drive a car, you don't just throw them the keys one day & say--"good luck".

To get better at something you do more of it not less.

Introduction to checking at an even younger age should be implemented so that by the time they become young men they have experience in the skill of using the body.

This also forces even greater skill in skating and puck control at a younger age.

Penalty and rule we have greater definitions all of the time, but for "BIG" hits the rationale is we will know it when we see it(?) Rules are very clear (offside, no more than two strides after the puck is gone, etc) Subjectivity needs to be removed as much as possible.

Clean is clean (Keep off the back, elboys and hands out of the face) regardless of size disparity of opponents. If a player is not mature enough physically to play on a certain team then they do not, that is why we have the different levels.

I oppose "no checking" because...
If you can figure out how to eliminate the "blow-up" hits at center ice, then I'm all for that. But a good body check that knocks the puck carrier down and separates the puck from the puck carrier needs to be legal. Even at the Squirt level.

I think it's both dangerous and irresponsible to introduce checking at Bantams when the size differences between the biggest and smaller players is even more pronounced than they are at the PeeWee level.

IMO, checking should be taught properly at the Squirt level, but not introduced until PeeWees.

The speed of the game at peewees will make it very tough on goalies and defense with out checking. It is part of developing well rounded players. If a kid quits because of checking at bantams it will be very tough for them to pick up another sport for high school as well

I oppose ths rule as the same thing can be accomplished as the rule directive previously about puck play that circulated a couple years ago.

Ron Degregario openly stated on televisiion during the Junior Championships that his goal is to have over One Hundred Thousand registered hockey players playing below some age really soon. I think the age he was targetomg was 8 but it was quite awhile ago. The only way he can do this is by hoping that girls stay with the game and due to no teams in many areas will continue or move over to youth programs. I am sure his legal counsel has told or said to him something to the effect "Your going to have injuries and with Pop Warner limiting players difference in size to 5 pounds.. You risk serious litigation issues if someone blows up a player and were going to face larger insurance rates.

I oppose the no checking in Pee Wees proposed change.

First, officials need to call the rules that are in the book already and hedge toward the more severe instead of the less severe. At a tournament I was at this past weekend, one game I watched had 3 textbook checking from behind, two of the kids were hurt and the officials called cross checking each time. Call the current book and go to the heavier penalty.

Second, I think that checking should be allowed in Squirt, not wait until Pee Wees, or God forbid, Bantams. I would rather see 60 lb, slower moving, less physically strong squirts learning the art than waiting for 160-200 lb bantams full of racing hormones and teenage attitude running each other at bantam speeds.

Third, I am and would be even more concerned about the smaller associations that do not have bantam teams, they send their pee wees to the JV and even varsity teams. Starting in two seasons, there would be kids skating at the high school level with ZERO checking experience going up against kids that have up to 5 years of checking experience. There are 3 programs in our district and 4 programs in our section that do not have bantams.

Waiting to bantams will increase injuries, not reduce them, and then where will we go? Take checking out of bantams and let the high school coaches teach them? As another poster stated, you get better at doing something by doing it more and younger and I feel this is another. Leave checking in Pee Wees and open Squirts up to more contact too.

I oppose no checking in Pee-Wees because ...

If the boards are so worried about the size difference in our current groupings, I would fully endorse adding in a midget division. Thus making one more step in the process.

The most significant problem here is coaching. These kids need to be taught how to properly deliver a check (separating the puck from the body) rather than the classic first-year elbow to the head.

As mentioned in this and numerous other threads, this is alot like driving a car. Just as serious of an injury can occur on the ice as it can on the roads. No one in their right mind would toss the keys to their child and say "go at it." The same approach should be used here. The coaching and training needs to be pushed down to the squirt level. The game application needs to remain at Pee-Wees.

Oppose - No one wants the kids getting hurt, but to not let them start checking until Bantams makes no sense at all, they are bigger and I would bet that there would be more serious injuries at that level if thats when they started checking. Checking is one thing, learning to take a check is much more important, maybe all peewees should be required to take training on how to take a check properly. I see kids throw a clean check and the kid receiving gets melted into the boards because his body is positioned completely wrong. Also agree that they should start learning some of the basics in squirts.

I support checking in Peewees as long as there is change to the rules.

Minnesota Hockey should also set up a 2-3 day mandatory clinic to explain the rules and how to properly check before they can enter Peewees.. The clinic should teach the real purpose of a check and show how some ill intended checks have changed some peoples lives forever. They are currently going in VERY uneducated.

The current roller derby mentality needs to change.

farmington14 wrote:Oppose - No one wants the kids getting hurt, but to not let them start checking until Bantams makes no sense at all, they are bigger and I would bet that there would be more serious injuries at that level if thats when they started checking. Checking is one thing, learning to take a check is much more important, maybe all peewees should be required to take training on how to take a check properly. I see kids throw a clean check and the kid receiving gets melted into the boards because his body is positioned completely wrong. Also agree that they should start learning some of the basics in squirts.

I agree

I have been around the game a long time. Kids do not know how to check. Most Players, Coaches, Parents, i.e. think a check does not count unless you knock the kid down. Kids are not taught how to "play the Body" they are not taught how to "Eliminate Space" How many times do you see a player go into play the body and take themselevs out of the play as well as the guy who use to have the puck. I see so many kids Run face first into the boards because they were trying to hit someone so hard but missed. Coaches TEACH the proper techniques. If you do not know HOW, ask for Help.. The officials are trying to assist in cleaning up the game by calling the rules by the book. Parents, coaches i.e. need to start understanding the RULES and except them. A player punches a kid in the head and a parent, coach etc gets made, they think it was OK cause it was Provoked by something else. Officials can not watch your little johnny as much as you do. Officials Can not see the game as well as the parents at birds eye view in the stands. Have associations start reviewing Score sheets - if they start seeing too many (overly agressive penalties over a course of a season start suspending kids, coaches etc ? Charging, Roughing, High Stick's, Check From behind, boarding, elbowing, slashing. are all aggresion related penalties discipline Those players, maybe that will help? But I say Keep checking in the game, just Teach it correctly and start eliminateing the problems. (sorry - I feel like this is long winded. new to this, not many posts)

Strongly in favor.

By formalizing that 'body contact' is part of the game from age 7-8, it means players will understand the purpose of checking as they age. Through 9-10 the game will be come even more physical as players increase their speed. At 11-12 coaches will spend a great deal of time instructing and by 13-14 the introduction of hitting will not be significantly different.

Benefits:

• Gradual process matches natural learning progression
  Increased physicality at younger ages
  Better definition of various types of contact

This is funny. I read the comments and they seemed to echo the stated reasons for a rule change.

Then I voted.

TWO in favor and 26 against!

I don't think people understand the proposal. Most of the comments talk about the need for more contact at a younger age.

Anyway, this vote isn't the one that matters. As I've said before, USA Hockey has a challenge with implementation because they have not done a great job of getting the word out.

I'm afraid to ask how many people watched the video. Last I checked it was just 200 people nationally in a whole week.

Make that 3 in favor.
It seems everyone wants people more used to correct checking by Bantams. The proposal is designed to do that. It will allow more contact before Peewees and dictates that Peewees should spend time every practice on checking. The question is how to get the membership to follow the implementation.

I oppose for the reasons stated above. Unfortunately I do not see coaches really properly teaching checking at the pee wee level if it is not part of the game. I know our coach does a lot of angling and some checking education at squirts and it really helped the boys as they went into pee wees, but I really don't see all coaches jumping on board. I also feel that checking should start at squirts so that as the kids grow it is a skill they already have. For those that don't want to check, I think the b2 and c level teams should be non checking. Just my thoughts, but what do I know.

I oppose and would like to see checking started at the Squirt level. The size and speed for most skaters is not there yet so fundamentals would provide a GREAT learning for the following years of Pee Wee, Bantams, etc.

I bet if the poll title was changed to "Support more contact in squirts and checking taught in all Peewee practices," the voting would be reversed.

You're voting No, but your comments say Yes.

Please limit your comments - take additional ones to another thread.
I would like to just copy this and give it to the MH board...

If I have to go through and remove comemtns on what should or should nto be presented and what others might be thinking it makes more work for me.

bump

The fact is that when, not if, this rule goes into effect, you will have some kids that will be out on the high school varsity ice with just one year of checking under their belts. That makes no sense whatsoever.

In addition, when this rule goes through, more discretion is going to be dumped on the shoulders of the already over-stressed and underpaid officials of these games. "was that a check", "did he raise his arms". What a joke. They can't get officials to call the rules the way they are now and yet we are going to expect them to determine on the fly "if that was a check or not"? Wake up.

What about the second year PeeWee's next season, they have checked for one year in PeeWee along with checking in AAA seasons for over 2 years now, I could see that messing up their game, they will have to unlearn then relearn in Bantams