12U Girls Hockey will never be the same....

[Bighead]

If the rule change of no checking in PW Hockey is passed, the quality and participation in 12U Hockey will be very limited. Girls will flood to the boys side until 14U and High School level. This rule change is not good for the boys or the girls! What is your opinion????

[luckyEPDad]

I'm all for removing checking at all levels. It has no place in a skill game like hockey. But that's not the question is it.

I don't see the rule having any effect on girls hockey. Most of the girls I know thought about playing PW instead of 12U because they want to check (especially to check boys). If there is no checking in PW it no longer has any allure.

As for the boys, the only advantage to checking at PW level is that it reinforces skating with your head up. Weigh that against greater opportunities to carry the puck and more creativity in setting up plays. I think coaches can find other ways to get those heads up.

My vote is the rule change is good for both girls and boys hockey.

[iamad2r]

The rule change we really need is one that prevents girls from associations with girls' programs from playing on boys teams. Hockey is a team sport, and these girls who "can't get enough development" playing with other girls need to learn how to make their teammates better. Otherwise they will still be one-dimensional when they get to High School.

[knights58]

EP Dad, what game are you referring to? Have you watched a hockey game over the last 100 years or so? Checking shouldn't be part of the game???? At any level? You've got the wrong sport...you mean soccer..or maybe Ringett. Unbelievable.....

The rule is silly and is a complete over reaction. It will result in MORE concussions, rather than fewer because players will play with their heads down. The highest risk of concussion for all hockey players is at the girls level..according to the study done by USA Hockey. Why do you think that is? Because they know they will not get checked and therefore play with their heads down. So now, they are going to take pee wee players that are used to playing with their heads down, send them to Bantams where the kids now weigh up to 220 pounds and have them learn there? Typical. Leave the sport alone..it was doing just fine before all the soccer moms and dads (ep dad) decided to change the fabric of the game.

Since you want checking removed...we better remove slap shots..those are too dangerous. There should be a speed limit for how fast players can skate...because they could get hurt. They should probably remove the boards because players have been paralyzed by running into them. Pucks are too hard...switch to a foam puck or ball. It's called illustrating silliness with silliness.

[redarmydad]

I think those who doubt this will have an impact on girls hockey better start asking around and see where their friends and team mates stand. I have heard from alot of people and the buzz is "Why play girls hockey anymore". "Boys side is way more competitive". Not that I agree with this statement, I am just restating what other have said. I feel like girls programs, especially in the smaller communities are going to suffer a loss in numbers. I agree with what "Lucky" and "I'M MAD" said. For the bennefit of the girls program statewide, it would be nice to keep girls to girls. But the unfortunate flipside of that argument will always win. The claim of sexism will always win. Quality of play! Level of coaching! All reasons people would want to send their girls to skate on boys teams. Not all, but some will do this eventually leading to fewer players in the girls program, and if there is any success by those girls who have made the switch to boys, you will see the few soon become the many.

[knights58]

Sorry, I did get kind of worked up and off subject. I totally agree, this will have a huge impact on girls hockey. I know it will have an affect on our numbers here in North Wright County...I've already heard a few parents mention a switch for their younger girls. We've had some success lately, but our numbers are getting tight at the younger levels surrounding girls. We need to keep all we can coming to our program rather than going to boys.

[luckyEPDad]

Since you want checking removed...we better remove slap shots..those are too dangerous. There should be a speed limit for how fast players can skate...because they could get hurt. They should probably remove the boards because players have been paralyzed by running into them. Pucks are too hard...switch to a foam puck or ball. It's called illustrating silliness with silliness.

I overheard a girls team watching the NHL All Star game while waiting for ice to open up. They couldn't believe how bad the defense was. One observed that the only defense the players knew was knocking other players down. Soon they were all laughing about how stupid boys hockey is.

My dislike for checking has nothing to do with safety. I just find it boring. Some people crave violence in the sports they watch. I have to believe that is the reason football is so popular. I am drawn to the speed, precision and grace of hockey. Too me checking does not enhance the game.

[FIRE*ON*ICE]

I'm all for removing checking at all levels. It has no place in a skill game like hockey. But that's not the question is it.

I don't see the rule having any effect on girls hockey. Most of the girls I know thought about playing PW instead of 12U because they want to check (especially to check boys). If there is no checking in PW it no longer has any allure.

As for the boys, the only advantage to checking at PW level is that it reinforces skating with your head up. Weigh that against greater opportunities to carry the puck and more creativity in setting up plays. I think coaches can find other ways to get those heads up.

My vote is the rule change is good for both girls and boys hockey.

WOW LUCKY WOW! Don't shorten the bench...Remove Checking...Who Cares about winning? I absolutely have to laugh and laugh again everytime I read your posts!!! You are quite the softy aren't you? TOO FUNNY! Keep 'em comin' I really enjoy the entertainment! Have you ever played hockey? It is a physical game and that is the way it always has been and should be in my eyes! It is about winning! That's why there is a scoreboard and the talented kids usually play more... That's LIFE!

Good point BIGHEAD! I hope that isn't the case that all the girls flood to the boys. I think some girls don't want to play with the boys for their own reasons but I hope girls stay with the girls. I think a gifted and talented girl player does just as well with all girls because the depth in girls hockey has improved over the years! There are more options like FIT Training to help get the girls stronger and faster and it seems like the girls teams are taking advantage of these programs...My daughter and I both wish they would actually INTRODUCE body checking to the girls side! My son is sad to see it go away for the Pee Wee level and so am I, I hope it doesn't pass...

[luckyEPDad]

WOW LUCKY WOW! Don't shorten the bench...Remove Checking...Who Cares about winning? I absolutely have to laugh and laugh again everytime I read your posts!!! You are quite the softy aren't you? TOO FUNNY! Keep 'em comin' I really enjoy the entertainment! Have you ever played hockey? It is a physical game and that is the way it always has been and should be in my eyes! It is about winning! That's why there is a scoreboard and the talented kids usually play more... That's LIFE!

Checking:
I don't have a safety concern about checking, I just find it boring. I was watching the NHL All Star game at the rink and overheard some girls laughing at the defense. One said "The only defense they know how to play is knocking each other down". That drew some laughs and a lot of comments about how stupid boys hockey is. I don't think boys hockey is stupid, but too often interesting situations end in "SLAM!" If I wanted to see players slamming into each other I'd watch football.

That's the way it always has been:
Always a weak argument. Players didn't used to wear helmets. Should we go back to that? How about flat bladed wooden sticks? Do composite sticks offend your hockey sensibilities?

Hockey players have changed. They are bigger, faster and more skilled then ever. The ice is starting to look pretty small out there. I'd just like to see a more open game. Recent rule changes show I'm not alone. Maybe removing checking is taking it too far, but it is just my opinion.

It is about winning:
Few on this forum agree with that. STA won the state tournament. Some question their accomplishment. If it is all about winning all would have to agree that it is foolish for any school to play at a higher level than required. If it is all about winning why does a close loss to a vastly superior opponent feel epic while a win against an inferior opponent is ho-hum?

We play games not to win, but to test ourselves. The greater the opponent the sweeter the victory. I think the important part is the contest, not the result. The EP boys HS hockey team is thinking "That game was epic! The longest championship game in state history. Rau's goal was awesome!" The Duluth East boys are thinking "That game was epic! The longest championship game in state history. Rau's goal was a lucky fluke and we owned them in overtime." It would make me sad if either team felt bad about that game. The end result, sure, but both have to be proud of what they did.

Have I ever played hockey:
Not really. As a North Dakota boy I didn't have the opportunity to play. No ice back in those days. I did play just about anything that didn't require ice. I don't watch any of those sports now but I sure like hockey. Nothing is as fast or so demanding of its players.

With my daughter playing now I think hockey is the perfect team sport. Unlike baseball and football where one position can dominate a game, hockey has a flow that requires the highest level of teamwork. At high levels it is seldom you see a game won by a single player. This is probably the reason why hockey is the least popular of major sports in the USA. How can you have superstars that are held scoreless on a regular basis?

Am I a softy?
When it comes to kids, yes. Shoot me if that is a crime.

Sports teaching life lessons:
What does it teach a kid to sit her during a game? If she is just starting out it likely teaches her that hockey is a stupid sport. Play that kid and it teaches her line that everyone has strengths and weaknesses and that you need to work together to maximize one and minimize the other. One of our "weak" players scored a goal this last Sunday in the 14B state championship game. I was afraid we were going to get a delay of game penalty when the bench emptied and the team wrapped her up in a giant group hug. I thought it was pretty cool. That girl is a hockey player for life now.

I was terrible when I started little league. Slow runner, couldn't hit, afraid of the ball. I stunk. My coach played me anyway. His confidence made me play and practice harder. Each morning I got up early, ran to school and played balls off the only brick wall within a 2 mile radius. My teammates helped me out with tips, showed support when I made mistakes, and celebrated my successes. I got a lot better. I learned that hard work pays off. I learned it is stupid to assume that what you are today is who you are always going to be. I learned that kindness is a strength. I learned that important long term goals should not be sabotaged for unimportant short term gain.

Perhaps most importantly I learned what kind of coach I want to be. Now the coach I try to be (don't worry, I leave hockey coaching to others).

That should keep you laughing for a while.

[FIRE*ON*ICE]

WOW LUCKY WOW! Don't shorten the bench...Remove Checking...Who Cares about winning? I absolutely have to laugh and laugh again everytime I read your posts!!! You are quite the softy aren't you? TOO FUNNY! Keep 'em comin' I really enjoy the entertainment! Have you ever played hockey? It is a physical game and that is the way it always has been and should be in my eyes! It is about winning! That's why there is a scoreboard and the talented kids usually play more... That's LIFE!

Checking:
I don't have a safety concern about checking, I just find it boring. I was watching the NHL All Star game at the rink and overheard some girls laughing at the defense. One said "The only defense they know how to play is knocking each other down". That drew some laughs and a lot of comments about how stupid boys hockey is. I don't think boys hockey is stupid, but too often interesting situations end in "SLAM!" If I wanted to see players slamming into each other I'd watch football.

That's the way it always has been:
Always a weak argument. Players didn't used to wear helmets. Should we go back to that? How about flat bladed wooden sticks? Do composite sticks offend your hockey sensibilities?

Hockey players have changed. They are bigger, faster and more skilled then ever. The ice is starting to look pretty small out there. I'd just like to see a more open game. Recent rule changes show I'm not alone. Maybe removing checking is taking it too far, but it is just my opinion.

It is about winning:
Few on this forum agree with that. STA won the state tournament. Some question their accomplishment. If it is all about winning all would have to agree that it is foolish for any school to play at a higher level than required. If it is all about winning why does a close loss to a vastly superior opponent feel epic while a win against an inferior opponent is ho-hum?

We play games not to win, but to test ourselves. The greater the opponent the sweeter the victory. I think the important part is the contest, not the result. The EP boys HS hockey team is thinking "That game was epic! The longest championship game in state history. Rau's goal was awesome!" The Duluth East boys are thinking "That game was epic! The longest championship game in state history. Rau's goal was a lucky fluke and we owned them in overtime." It would make me sad if either team felt bad about that game. The end result, sure, but both have to be proud of what they did.

Have I ever played hockey:
Not really. As a North Dakota boy I didn't have the opportunity to play. No ice back in those days. I did play just about anything that didn't require ice. I don't watch any of those sports now but I sure like hockey. Nothing is as fast or so demanding of its players.

With my daughter playing now I think hockey is the perfect team sport. Unlike baseball and football where one position can dominate a game, hockey has a flow that requires the highest level of teamwork. At high levels it is seldom you see a game won by a single player. This is probably the reason why hockey is the least popular of major sports in the USA. How can you have superstars that are held scoreless on a regular basis?

Am I a softy?
When it comes to kids, yes. Shoot me if that is a crime.

Sports teaching life lessons:
What does it teach a kid to sit her during a game? If she is just starting out it likely teaches her that hockey is a stupid sport. Play that kid and it teaches her line that everyone has strengths and weaknesses and that you need to work together to maximize one and minimize the other. One of our "weak" players scored a goal this last Sunday in the 14B state championship game. I was afraid we were going to get a delay of game penalty when the bench emptied and the team wrapped her up in a giant group hug. I thought it was pretty cool. That girl is a hockey player for life now.

I was terrible when I started little league. Slow runner, couldn't hit, afraid of the ball. I stunk. My coach played me anyway. His confidence made me play and practice harder. Each morning I got up early, ran to school and played balls off the only brick wall within a 2 mile radius. My teammates helped me out with tips, showed support when I made mistakes, and celebrated my successes. I got a lot better. I learned that hard work pays off. I learned it is stupid to assume that what you are today is who you are always going to be. I learned that kindness is a strength. I learned that important long term goals should not be sabotaged for unimportant short term gain.

Perhaps most importantly I learned what kind of coach I want to be. Now the coach I try to be (don't worry, I leave hockey coaching to others).

That should keep you laughing for a while.[/

quote]

I'm sure it would but I don't have time to read your novel :0

[D6 Girls Fan]

There is no question that if the Pee Wees don't check, the very best girls will opt for that. Generally the level of play is better, and anyone who is serious about their daughter's advancement will let her play with the faster boys. In truth, it might be the best thing for the girls.

You COULD make the argument that there's no reason for girls hockey at all. Just toss all the kids in a big pile and sort them out. The top girls would probably benefit, the weaker boys wouldn't get dominated as much.

However, I've watched my girls play with boys then play with all girls and be 100% happier and more excited about playing with their friends than playing with boys. I'm glad they played squirts, but they liked 12U way better.

I'm just against the no checking rule in general. The fact that it will likely devalue girls hockey is just a by-product.

[InigoMontoya]

The rule change we really need is one that prevents girls from associations with girls' programs from playing on boys teams. Hockey is a team sport, and these girls who "can't get enough development" playing with other girls need to learn how to make their teammates better. Otherwise they will still be one-dimensional when they get to High School.

Really??? The success of girls' hockey in a community rests on a couple 9 year old girls (or 11 year old girls deciding between peewees or 12U) who should "make their teammates better"? No responsibility on coaches, board members, or parents of the other girls, or the other girls themselves. I realize this is "the chicken or the egg" argument, but I think you need to take a look at what the chicken is offering, before you fix blame on the egg.

[TriedThat2]

I don't know if D2 meant that the success is burdened by the girls. What IS missed the a huge marketing and recruitment opportunity. If the upper level girls select youth (boys) hockey as their avenue, then the social marketing concept is lost. Build the program with numbers, the cream will rise.

Back on subject......Yes, I strongly believe that the removal of checking from PW's will drastically affect numbers in girls hockey. In fact, I would go on record to say that it could kill girls hockey in the outstate area.

[luckyEPDad]

I pulled up the team rosters for Eden Prairie. At the mites level there are dozens of girls playing with boys. At the squirts level I found 3. At PW I couldn't find all the team rosters and I couldn't find any girls. In know when my daughter was that age there were 3.

In EP the big exodus is girls going into U10. Maybe the U8 and U6 programs aren't developed enough. It does not appear that girls switch over from boys hockey because they are afraid of checking.

I've often been told that EP's program is far from the norm. What do the numbers say for other associations?

[InigoMontoya]

The state of girls hockey in Minnesota splits this conversation between the Haves and Have-nots. This is a completely different conversation in Wayzata or Edina than it is in North Metro or New Prague. Few girls would feel compelled to leave a team of 13 or 15 girls that can skate (and probably did all summer); however, a girl faced with a line of figure skaters and a line of friends from free skate that just started hockey and a couple kids pulled up from the younger age group just to have enough to field a team, may feel like she fits in better from a hockey standpoint with boys. This is not an ideal situation, for sure, but it is the reality in most associations. I don't know what the answer is, but I know for sure that the answer does not involve blaming the young lady for being more athletic, enjoying the sport more, or putting in more work than her peers. TT2, she isn't a marketing opportunity, she's a kid.

[NotEasyBeingGreen]

No, this hurts Edina, Wayzata, Woodbury, all those teams, because "A Type" parents want their girls competing against the best. All I see it hurting is the boys, who don't learn how to take a hit until they're hit by a much larger opponent.

[TriedThat2]

I'm not blaming the young lady; because the rules permit a choice. You actually confirmed my thought process. In the outstate, many of our teams are filled with "figure skaters, and friends that just started hockey", and again, you are correct, not ideal, but reality!

All I was trying to point out is if the young lady does make the choice to play youth hockey, her social world, and all of her friends that are "figure skaters and just starting hockey" and are out for the game because it is a fun social gathering will now leave the sport and try swimming or basketball.

[InigoMontoya]

NEBG, how many Edina girls are currently playing squirts? I think you will find most of us non-cake-eaters shaking our heads at your "problem"; if those 25 girls are all that good, then there shouldn't be one girl that would have a problem playing with the other 24.

TT2, what you're pointing out is that if the young lady plays with the boys "all of her friends" "will now leave the sport". That sure sounds like your willing to put the failure of the entire program onto one 9 or 11 year old kid. It seems to me we need to spend a little more time trying to figure out WHY the girl (or her parents) feel the need to play with the boys, then either 1) fix the problem, so those girls stay on girls' teams, or 2) realize that it is not a problem and let those girls go.

[EPIC97]

Here are a couple of observations perhaps a couple of solutions.

I think the issue with checking at peewees is not at the A and B1 level it is at the B2 and C level of play. What I witness at these levels of play are the huge swings in hockey players abilities. A 5'10" 200 pound 12 year old vs. a first year skater 85 lbs. soaking wet. The two don't mix well when it comes to checking.
This is where checking needs to be eliminated and skill development priority 1. Yes checking is a skill, taking a check is also a skill. If MN hockey wants to change things take checking away at the C and B2 level and mandate a Checking program that all players must pass before playing at the B1 and A level.

On the girl's side I think the solution is simple. If the new rules pass you have the option to play youth or girls hockey. Once you commit to one or the other you stay until HS. If you want to change between youth and girls you must sit out a season. I think it is way to easy for the girls to bounce around as they see fit. Youth one year girls the next.

[NotEasyBeingGreen]

I like that solution. If you're going to switch back, you sit.

[luckyEPDad]

I like that solution. If you're going to switch back, you sit.

Like that wouldn't be a problem. Kids would play in a different association instead of sit. You then have another metro/non-metro chasm where metro girls get a free pass to try PW or 12U, because an Edina kid could avoid the skip and play in EP (heaven forbid), but where is a Mora kid going to play?

If there is a reason for girls hockey to exist, the way to draw players is to make it the most attractive option. Most girls will chose to play girls hockey. A parent education program is needed.

[SmalltownHockey]

I agree that the parent education program is the correct answer. We recently had our end of the year hockey party. The girls on our team were asked to tell there favorite memory from the year. Out of fourteen girls one had a response that related to a hockey game. That was a goal that was scored as time ran out on the clock to tie the game. The rest varied from shopping at wall mart to sleepovers to a dorm room stay at a tournament. The best players are the ones that love the game of hockey and are willing to put in time working on skills off the ice. If the love of the game is not built at the youth levels the future success of your duaghter will not happen, she will play basketball instead. With girls in hockey the social aspect is much more important than it is for boys. A girl playing with the boys is being set up for failure. Raising a self confident woman playing in the girls program is a much more attainable goal. There are plenty of opportunities to play AAA hockey and summer camps for the higher development.

[EPIC97]

It would be a MN hockey rule not an association rule.
As for the girl in Mora nothing changes. They are making these choices every year anyway. Play youth or find a girls team she can rainbow into if they don't have the numbers to support a girls program. The one exception might be that if Mora gets the numbers for a girls team of their own she can play for her own community girls team. (without penalty)
You can always play USA hockey recreational league that way you don't sit out a season. (or do you ?)

A parent education program is needed? Not clear, what you are suggesting here.

[spin-o-rama]

On the girl's side I think the solution is simple. If the new rules pass you have the option to play youth or girls hockey. Once you commit to one or the other you stay until HS. If you want to change between youth and girls you must sit out a season. I think it is way to easy for the girls to bounce around as they see fit. Youth one year girls the next.

Heavy handed rules are a great way to kill participation.

I don't know of any girl who has switched back to boys (youth) after playing girls. Some switch to girls after mites, a few after squirts, and the rare few after pw. There won't be more peewee girls than squirt girls. If U10 can function with the loss of a few to squirts, so can U12. (Yes, I know it's not easy at the U10 level in some assoications.) Girls hockey will still be able to grow.

Edina doesn't have as many girls playing squirts this year when compared to years past. There are a few Edina girls playing Choice squirts.

[InigoMontoya]

I agree that the parent education program is the correct answer. We recently had our end of the year hockey party. The girls on our team were asked to tell there favorite memory from the year. Out of fourteen girls one had a response that related to a hockey game. That was a goal that was scored as time ran out on the clock to tie the game. The rest varied from shopping at wall mart to sleepovers to a dorm room stay at a tournament. The best players are the ones that love the game of hockey and are willing to put in time working on skills off the ice. If the love of the game is not built at the youth levels the future success of your duaghter will not happen, she will play basketball instead. With girls in hockey the social aspect is much more important than it is for boys. A girl playing with the boys is being set up for failure. Raising a self confident woman playing in the girls program is a much more attainable goal. There are plenty of opportunities to play AAA hockey and summer camps for the higher development.

I want to make sure I fully understand. You are in favor of a education program that conforms parents to your beliefs. If we could just lay them slightly declined with cheesecloth over their mouths and noses... What exactly is wrong with the girl that thought hockey was an important aspect of a hockey season v. the girls that had a hoot at the mall. If a team of 12 year olds with similar objectives (skating hard, getting better, winning) exists, why would you force a child to play with children that don't have the same priorities (malls, nails, sleepovers).

"A girl playing with the boys is being set up for failure." This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever seen on this forum.