NO MORE BODY CONTACT IN PEEWEE HOCKEY

Jason Gregor
May 07 2013 11:45PM

A source told me tomorrow afternoon Hockey Alberta will announce that beginning next season there will be no more checking in peewee.

The email I received said, "Effective immediately checking will be removed from peewee hockey."

This doesn't come as a major surprise. They have been talking about this for a few years, and they have done studies comparing the amount of injuries in Alberta to Quebec where they don't allow checking until Bantam.

I know many kids have quit hockey when they reach peewee because they don't like checking, so this will likely keep more kids playing the game. That is great.

A concern will be that 13 year olds, first year bantam, are stronger and faster than first year peewees, so the potential might be higher with kids learning to check at 13 compared to 11.

I believe the biggest change has to come from coaching. I believe more amateur coaches need to be given better instructions so they can be better coaches. There needs to be a better formula so that volunteer coaches can instruct kids better on how to give and receive a check.

If more coaches are given better instructional tools, they can pass on that knowledge to their players. It benefits everyone.

I understand Hockey Alberta's decision to remove checking from peewee, but I'm not sure it will solve the injury problems. I think it might only delay them a couple of years.

Do you agree with this decision? Do you have kids who were afraid to play? As a coach do you feel you get enough instruction to teach proper checking techniques?

REMINDER...

We are ten days away from a great night. Jason Strudwick and Yukon Jack had some pretty damn impressive karaoke performances last night during the Oil Kings game. If that was any indication of how much fun our 12 finalists and  special "celebrity" guests will  have next Friday I'm jacked. May 17th, at On The Rocks is our King/Queen of Karaoke challenge.

Tickets are $25/each with 100% of the proceeds going to charity. And with your $25 ticket you get $50 in gift certificates from On The Rocks and Oodle Noodle. So you make money by supporting the cause. You can buy your tickets here. They will be sold out by next week.

RECENTLY BY JASON GREGOR

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#51 book¡e
May 08 2013, 08:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
the yak wrote:

A couple of my best friends are from BC. They grew up playing hockey where hitting is introduced in Bantam, and we have had several conversations about hitting. They both like the Alberta system better. Why should we introduce the physical game when kids are much stronger and faster. It's Chaos, and kids do get hurt more.

People who played in BC have the gift of hindsight in regards to this idea, and most will tell you hitting should be introduced as soon as possible. Not after these boys gave grown another 2 years. Bantam players are too fast too strong to be learning how to give and more importantly take a hard check.

The opinions of 'a couple of your friends' is irrelevant in the face of a scientific study comparing injury rates across two leagues with different rules

Avatar
#52 slats432
May 08 2013, 08:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Interesting point that I agree with Travis. I coach Peewee, and there are devastating hits. Many of them taken by larger players on smaller players because of the advantage.

I saw several concussions this year, and if they take it out this year, my son, who is a great hitter, will actually have a distinct disadvantage by this rule. I support it.

Hitting should be for the highest level, because the players should be more aware, better skaters, and more able to have it a part of their game.

I have seen kids quit or not even play hockey because of the style of sport/hitting.

There is no right or wrong answer because I played to Junior, and was fine with hitting. As a hockey parent and coach, I endorse this decision.

Avatar
#53 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 08:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props
BigOil wrote:

@Travis Dakin

You and people like you are the ones ruining the game of hockey.

You probably want to give them medals just for showing up too.

That's the second stupidest thing I've read in this thread. Yes, I'm ruining the game of hockey because I want kids to focus on learning how to play with the puck before they learn how to separate others from It. Have you not been paying attention to the concussion issues plaguing the game? Do you think kids have the wherewithal to avoid delivering head shots?

Hitting can be in hockey. It has a place and it can be awesome. All I'm saying is, let the kids who play competetive hockey deal with it.

Avatar
#54 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Travis Dakin wrote:

Because they are playing for fun! It's friggin house league. Let the actual good hockey players hit. The ones in rep.

This is not a house-league only issue though.

Avatar
#55 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

Parents are scared little Johnny is going to get hurt. If Johnny and his friends were taught how to properly hit from day 1 would it not seem to reason that the kids would be more properly prepared to give and receive checks?

You apparently forget what it like to be a kid. Or perhaps, I was the only kid who valued destroying another kid, to look awesome in front of my peers, over other kid's safety.

Avatar
#56 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

This is not a house-league only issue though.

It should be. Taking it out of peewee is an early step in the long, slow process of people finally catching up to the scientific facts. Head injuries=bad.

Avatar
#57 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Taking hitting out of PeeWee will only shift the injuries to a different age group. This is an attempt at a bandaid fix, not a solution.

Avatar
#58 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 09:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
book¡e wrote:

The theory about 'learning to hot while young' was disproven by studies comparing leagues that follow different rules. 'Saw it good' does not stand up to the facts when tested.

Tell me more about this:

"learning to hot while young"

It's like a Penthouse Forum story translated into Japanese and then back into English.

Avatar
#59 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 09:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

I never heard of anyone quitting hockey because of hitting while I was growing up. Sounds to me like the parents are the ones that are scared.

i was a tall and gangly kid and i did quit hockey in PeeWee. Loved hockey didn't have the aggresive nature. not for me.

as a parent i can say honestly say that yes i am scared for my kids safety. i wake up every single day for them. that's the only reason, my family. so call me a scaredy cat for being concerned BASED ON FACTS AND INFORMATION that my kids safety could be at risk.

Avatar
#60 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

Taking hitting out of PeeWee will only shift the injuries to a different age group. This is an attempt at a bandaid fix, not a solution.

Eventually, hopefully, it will be taken out of all house leagues.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/knes/news/bodychecking

Avatar
#61 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@mayorblaine

So you will not allow your kids to play any sport with an inherent risk of injury?

Avatar
#62 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Travis Dakin wrote:

Eventually, hopefully, it will be taken out of all house leagues.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/knes/news/bodychecking

I have no issues with it being eliminated from house leagues.

Avatar
#63 tileguy
May 08 2013, 09:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

bubble wrap vs manly west lil cricket my first rifle vs toy guns get you expelled republican democrat rich poor.

Compromise has to be the solution, stop taking the facts and twisting them for your own cause.

Bruce McCurdy had a great idea, a one year tier where everybody learns to hit at the same time.

Whatever age they introduce hitting at, in my opinion it should be a one-year category so that everybody at that level is learning to hit and take a hit at the same time. The way it stands, be it Pee Wee or Bantam, you have some kids with a whole year of hitting under their belt playing against other kids who are just getting introduced to it. A two-year group especially at that age is also likely to have more size mismatches between the older and younger kids. Then seperate house league no hit from rep big hit.

Avatar
#64 Quicksilver ballet
May 08 2013, 09:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

All these rules brought in, were intended to make the game a little safer. Looks to me like the only thing it's accomplished is paving the way for women to soon be playing in the NHL. Players can't even throw a clean stiff bodycheck now without getting suspended or having to fight.

Feel sorry for the generation of hockey fans that weren't able to witness the 80's version of the NHL. Every team had half a dozen good players, and the players policed themselves. The NHL isn't what it used to be, thanks to all these agents and lawyers. Death by paper cut appears to be imminent.

Avatar
#65 tileguy
May 08 2013, 09:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

ps, best thread in 3 months, hope this one keeps going for a couple of days.

Avatar
#66 Ducey
May 08 2013, 09:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I coach three teams every year including a Bantam team.

I used to be of the mindset of many of you that hitting should be part of the game, but I am not anymore.

I grew up hitting from a young age and I loved hitting.

But the reality is that we now know that concussions cause long term brain damage. We also know that 99.5% of the kids that play will never play professional hockey.

I have seen kids get multiple concussions over a number of years. Their ability to deal with life and school is diminished for weeks or sometimes more. We now know this can impact them later in life too.

Why are we putting our kids at risk of long term brain damage? I would hope that someone has a better argument than "because its part of the game".

I coach my daughters Pee Wee team and the hockey is just as good, if not better, than the boys at the same level. There are lots of rub outs and physical play (go watch the Pandas sometime). There are just no bone jarring hits.

Good decision by Hockey Alberta.

Avatar
#67 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 09:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

So you will not allow your kids to play any sport with an inherent risk of injury?

no i will just take the information presented and available and make the best decisions i can. i will support them whatever they choose. but their safety is foremost.

Avatar
#68 VK63
May 08 2013, 09:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Although I find the checking clinic and subsequent drills available through hockey alberta and other sources effective and quite thorough. The only thing that fully illustrates the cause and effect of improper technique associated with hitting is getting hit. Its a conundrum that simply cannot be replicated in a drill as most of the malice and intensity that comes from game play is exclusive to the adrenaline that exists during the course of play.

All the keep your head up talk in the world is weak prattle compared to getting hit with your head down. That act, in and of itself is the teaching tool that drives home the point.

Personally I think bantam is rather late to get that education. Many kids will have been in "pussy" hockey for as long as 8 years before they are placed in a real on ice situation. The bad habits associated with head down, toe drag, puck hog styles of play that are concurrent with "rec" style approaches will be even more ingrained than they currently are coming out of atom hockey.

I understand the Hockey Alberta motivation as numbers are shrinking for a plethora of reasons and hitting is one of many. Being the easiest to justify, champion and mandate it has a predictability to it.

This also affords AMH the opportunity to use kids to ref peewee hockey as it now becomes a non contact division. This is a predictable extension of the abuse that more senior officials take at the hands of coaches, players and parents in contact hockey. As much as player numbers are shrinking, adults interested in taking on the abuse associated with reffing minor hockey has cratered. AND.. I don't blame them a bit.

If hockey alberta would actually enforce the respect in sports protocols that they have for parents and coaches you would find parking lots full of non compliant violators waiting for their kids to finish their games. And frankly. The kids would probably be better off without the cancerous elements in the building..... but alas... then the numbers would shrink even more.

And in the end.... if there is an element of any decision with a financial element attached to it... there are agendas at work.

Avatar
#69 Ducey
May 08 2013, 09:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

All these rules brought in, were intended to make the game a little safer. Looks to me like the only thing it's accomplished is paving the way for women to soon be playing in the NHL. Players can't even throw a clean stiff bodycheck now without getting suspended or having to fight.

Feel sorry for the generation of hockey fans that weren't able to witness the 80's version of the NHL. Every team had half a dozen good players, and the players policed themselves. The NHL isn't what it used to be, thanks to all these agents and lawyers. Death by paper cut appears to be imminent.

We are talking about 11 and 12 year old kids, FFS.

Maybe ONE of them in the City playing PeeWee this year will make the NHL someday.

What goes on in Pee Wee hockey and the NHL are completely seperate issues.

There a plenty of '80's NHL players that can't enjoy their retirement because of long term brain injury. Was it worth it just so you could be entertained?

Things have changed due to science, not lawyers.

Avatar
#70 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
mayorblaine wrote:

no i will just take the information presented and available and make the best decisions i can. i will support them whatever they choose. but their safety is foremost.

I don't see how this minimizes the risk, all it does is transfer it to a different age group of players. To me, this is more of an education/coaching/attitude issue.

Avatar
#71 MarcusBillius
May 08 2013, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I was set on making my kids play soccer and lacrosse rather than hockey. Partly the equipment cost, partly the more convenient schedules, but mostly due to the concussion issues. I'd rather my son come home with a broken finger or fractured arm from a vicious slash than suffer concussions. Bones heal. Brains... it's hit and miss.

Avatar
#72 MarcusBillius
May 08 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

I don't see how this minimizes the risk, all it does is transfer it to a different age group of players. To me, this is more of an education/coaching/attitude issue.

Yeah, and if you have one jackass coach who likes it when his players run the other team, what are you going to do about it?

Avatar
#73 madjam
May 08 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Taking body checking out of all recreational hockey is fine . The top end , of which there are very few to begin with can be introduced to the physical game beyond PeeWee, and only to those few that are good enough to maybe look to a career in the sport .

Avatar
#74 Chaz
May 08 2013, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Bruce McCurdy wrote:

Whatever age they introduce hitting at, in my opinion it should be a one-year category so that everybody at that level is learning to hit and take a hit at the same time. The way it stands, be it Pee Wee or Bantam, you have some kids with a whole year of hitting under their belt playing against other kids who are just getting introduced to it. A two-year group especially at that age is also likely to have more size mismatches between the older and younger kids.

Totally agree, although changing the entire structure of how the age groups are organized might be a non-starter.

I also agree that there should be two stream available; hitting and non-hitting.

It's a tough issue and the Old Time Hockey part of me wants to say keep it as it is and teach the kids to hit, but it would be negligent not to address the issue.

Avatar
#75 Truth
May 08 2013, 09:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Horrible decision. Body contact is an integral part of the game and always should be. The size, speed, and strength difference of the kids in Bantam is exponentially greater in Bantam than Peewee. The game is totally different without contact in it, players will develop habits in Peewee that will get them in serious trouble in Bantam, especially the newcomers getting hit by the second (and I believe third) year players.

After playing competitive hockey for most of my young life I now play no contact men's league. I am absolutely positive if I changed back into contact hockey now I would have my clock cleaned due to the fact that the game is played much differently if the threat of being hit is absent.

True story: I know of parents that do not allow their children in the school parks due to the height of some of the apparatus'. Could it be these people be making these ridiculous rules?

Avatar
#76 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
MarcusBillius wrote:

Yeah, and if you have one jackass coach who likes it when his players run the other team, what are you going to do about it?

What does this have to do with what I said? What am I supposed to do, either way?

Avatar
#77 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

I don't see how this minimizes the risk, all it does is transfer it to a different age group of players. To me, this is more of an education/coaching/attitude issue.

you are absolutely right those are very pertinent issues.

what is a reasonable age to introduce something that cannot be controlled (no amount of education will change that) that has real potential to cause long term health issues?

i think todays announcement is a acknowledgement of that. a very good step.

Avatar
#78 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This is a very interesting thread. I agree with Trut that hitting should be introduced when the size speed and strength of these kids is at a lower level. This notion that introducing hitting in bantam would cause less injuries is rubbish. Let the kids learn when they are younger and teach them properly.

On the flip side I would also LOVE to see kids get the chance to play in a no contact league. I quit hockey in pee wee cause I couldn't stand the parents screaming at me to hit my friends. Some kids don't want to play a overly physical game..I was one. Hitting took a lot of the fun out of the game for me, A lot of kids will not admit this because the pressure of playing hockey growing up is insane.

I have more fun playing as a man in beer leagues than I ever did playing as a kid...there's something wrong with that.

Avatar
#79 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

You guys are so right. Screw that 10 year old kid who forgot to keep his head up for a moment while some little prick decided to run him. It's his own fault if his life gets ruined from concussions right?

Avatar
#80 Archaeologuy
May 08 2013, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Cant we all just agree that Travis is ruining hockey?

Avatar
#81 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

Cant we all just agree that Travis is ruining hockey?

That consensus was reached in 2009.

Avatar
#82 Tyler
May 08 2013, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This is a terrible. I understand not wanting children to be injured, however, this is not the correct way to fix the problem. By Bantam the height and strength difference is the largest issue. Some kids are men, others are still boys. This, combine with the fact that hitting is new, and bad habits of taking/making suicide passes, skating with head down, etc, are already in place. The penalty that children will pay in unlearning these habits will be massive with the size differential. Let children learn how to play, with contact, from Atom or even Novice on, when the children are largely the same size and the ability to injure each other is much less. This would be a much better route in my opinion.

Avatar
#83 Truth
May 08 2013, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

You guys are so right. Screw that 10 year old kid who forgot to keep his head up for a moment while some little prick decided to run him. It's his own fault if his life gets ruined from concussions right?

10/11 year olds are Atom I believe.

If you are saying that an 75 lbs 12 year old getting hit by a 85 lbs 13 year old is more damaging than a 90 lbs 14 year old getting hit by a 160 lbs 15 year old I do not understand the point.

Contact in hockey is inevitable. Delaying the proper education and ingraining of the proper style of play necessary to safely play the game of hockey until the kids are bigger stronger and faster is a mistake. The only instance it would not be a mistake is if contact is not to be introduced at all.

Avatar
#84 Benson
May 08 2013, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@K_Mart

Spot-on brother.

Avatar
#85 madjam
May 08 2013, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Times are changing , go with safety first . Womens hockey , even at pro level does not allow the sort of hits some refer to . Physical hockey should be restricted to the very few that ( less than 5% ) that are good enough to make a career attempt . Develop your other skills first and foremost . You'll get plenty of other opportunity in growing up to develop getting hit and how to receive and take . Like most I suspect , I left competitive hockey and other sports when I was expected to use my tuffs to initiate , rather than just protect myself or teammates . Not my disposition to do so . Keep the sport of hockey , it does not have to be overly physical to enjoy and flourish . Pro level is a different level .

Avatar
#86 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 10:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Truth wrote:

10/11 year olds are Atom I believe.

If you are saying that an 75 lbs 12 year old getting hit by a 85 lbs 13 year old is more damaging than a 90 lbs 14 year old getting hit by a 160 lbs 15 year old I do not understand the point.

Contact in hockey is inevitable. Delaying the proper education and ingraining of the proper style of play necessary to safely play the game of hockey until the kids are bigger stronger and faster is a mistake. The only instance it would not be a mistake is if contact is not to be introduced at all.

FFS - fine. The 11 year old. Some of those kids won't turn 12 until December. Better?

Can you show me where I said anything of the sort?

I do love the way so many of you believe your own opinions hold more weight than detailed studies on the issue.

Avatar
#87 jamelan4
May 08 2013, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Kids should be brought up hitting when they are still in novice, this way they learn to respect hitting growing up. In bantam puberty starts setting in horemones are going crazy and many teenage kids want to impress their buddies by taking someones head off. Don't increase the age.... lower it. Hockey is a physical sport that is why we Albertans love it.

Avatar
#88 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

do you know where I can find some of these detailed studies?

Avatar
#89 Steve
May 08 2013, 11:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Those that think this will somehow transfer the injuries to Bantam are flat out wrong, and I don't understand how you can actually think that.

For arguments sake, let's say the current number of hit-related injuries in League A Peewee is 100, and the number of injuries in League B Bantam is 150. If they change the rule, do you think the number of concussions in Bantam will go up to 250? That's greater than a 50% increase. The notion is absurd!

I can accept that injuries in Bantam might go up by 5% or so, but the total number of injuries between the two leagues will most definitely go down. By a lot.

My daughter like to watch the older teenage girls play, and it's really good hockey. Hitting is not necessary to play hockey. It's a way to expel aggression.

Avatar
#90 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
YFC Prez wrote:

do you know where I can find some of these detailed studies?

No, but if hockey Alberta claims to be making the changes based on such studies only 10 years or so after changing it to pee wee in the first place then I'm inclined to believe them.

Avatar
#91 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I apologize if this offends anyone but if contact is not your thing and it made you quit hockey, so what? I played one year each of soccer and basketball and quit because it wasn't physical enough, so I stuck with hockey and lacrosse.

I have coached young hockey and lacrosse players and the majority enjoy being able to hit and understand the flip side. That is part of what makes it fun. Don't take hitting out to appease the minority that don't enjoy the game.

This issue is about player safety. It is all about education; how to hit, when to hit, when not to hit, how to break out, how to go into a corner, how to make a pass, how not to make a pass (#61), how to enter a zone, etc.. These should be taught early in a players development. If all of these are taught without the aspect of hitting they are irrelevant for the actual game of hockey. Sure, I can do a end to end dangle in men's league with my head looking directly in my skates while cutting across the ice 3-4 times. Try that the next game when contact is allowed. I'd be dead.

Contact is part of the game and is part of the fun in hockey. If a child does not enjoy the game of hockey there are plenty of other sports and athletic activities with limited or no physical contact. Many of which the above commentators mention they switched too after not enjoying hockey.

I couldn't stand playing basketball due to the ease of getting a foul, did they change the rules to allow more contact?

Avatar
#92 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@jamelan4

Most martial arts introduce "light to medium" contact in young adolescents. they don't go full contact until around 16 or so and don't have the same injury problems hockey does. I would like to see kids hitting to separate the puck form the player. Problem is that most kids hit to separate player from skates. I don't think checking is the problem its the malicious attitude that comes with it. IMO introducing hitting at 13 or 14 when some of these kids are built more like men is a recipe for disaster.

Avatar
#93 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Truth

Because many kids love hockey and hate playing the physical game. Why do they have to loose out. I don't think that contact really needs to be a part of the game. Some of my best hockey memories were on the lake with a few buds, no adults, no pressure, no hitting...just fun. Wouldn't it be nice for those kids to be able to play and enjoy it as much as you did?

Avatar
#94 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
YFC Prez wrote:

do you know where I can find some of these detailed studies?

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/25/bjsports-2012-091921.extract

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/bodychecking-ice-hockey

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/3/657.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325640/

or... if you want the short versions:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/28/youth-brain-injuries-highest-in-hockey-study

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/hockey-linked-to-nearly-half-of-brain-injuries-in-canada-s-kid-teen-athletes-1.1216150

Avatar
#95 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

FFS - fine. The 11 year old. Some of those kids won't turn 12 until December. Better?

Can you show me where I said anything of the sort?

I do love the way so many of you believe your own opinions hold more weight than detailed studies on the issue.

By saying screw the 10 year old that forgot to keep his head up I am implying you are speaking to those opposed to the new rule change. The rule change delays the teaching of proper contact and playing with contact until the kids are bigger, stronger, and faster. I also imply that since you are speaking to the subject know that the size difference between players in Bantam is much greater than the size difference of players in Peewee. If not, please go watch a few games to realize this.

Let's see the detailed studies. I sure hope it's not injuries in contact peewee vs. non-contact pee-wee. Why not compare rugby and ballet?

Avatar
#96 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Romulus' Apotheosis

thank you

Avatar
#97 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
YFC Prez wrote:

Because many kids love hockey and hate playing the physical game. Why do they have to loose out. I don't think that contact really needs to be a part of the game. Some of my best hockey memories were on the lake with a few buds, no adults, no pressure, no hitting...just fun. Wouldn't it be nice for those kids to be able to play and enjoy it as much as you did?

http://www.hockeyedmonton.ca/index.php?submenu=Rec&src=gendocs&ref=RecRegistration&category=RecHockey

No-hit hockey for all ages. Not very popular, but it's there. I knew a few people that played it and loved it growing up, I knew a heck of a lot more that played normal hockey and loved it.

Avatar
#98 A-Mc
May 08 2013, 11:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The only issue i think that needs to be strategically considered and worked with, is contact during a time where body diversity is at its greatest in our youth.

I was one of those kids who grew from 5-6' over a summer, but i did so later than the average player i played against. Before i grew, the differences in body sizes was a real challenge in a contact sport.

Kids develop and mature at different times, and depending on what that bell curve looks like, i think i would be in favor of disallowing contact until kids are on the downward slope of said bell curve.

A possible side solution might be to limit body contact to top tiers of each league. Those players tend to take the game more seriously, work on skills, and would likely have better sense to protect themselves. I would argue that once you get into Tier 3-7 for teen hockey, it's mostly people there for fun. The dream is dead or was never birthed in those kids..

Avatar
#99 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/25/bjsports-2012-091921.extract

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/bodychecking-ice-hockey

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/3/657.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325640/

or... if you want the short versions:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/28/youth-brain-injuries-highest-in-hockey-study

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/hockey-linked-to-nearly-half-of-brain-injuries-in-canada-s-kid-teen-athletes-1.1216150

These tell us that playing hockey gives a greater chance of injury/head injury than other sports, such as soccer and basketball. I want to know if injuries/head injuries are reduced when contact is introduced in Bantam rather than Peewee. Kids may have less of a chance of injury for their Peewee years, but my opinion is that that players introduced to hitting in Bantam would have a much higher injury rate than players introduced to hitting in peewee, due to the reasons I brought up earlier.

Avatar
#100 Swede
May 08 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

All you need to do is go to Google Scholar and type in hockey concussion

Here's an interesting article published in the journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

JSEP Volume 35, Issue 2, April

Original Research Effects of Multiple Concussions on Retired National Hockey League Players

2013, 35, 168 – 179

The purpose of this study was to understand the meanings and lived experiences of multiple concussions in professional hockey players using hermeneutic, idiographic, and inductive approaches within an interpretative phenomenological analysis. The interviewer was an athlete who had suffered multiple concussions, and the interviewees were five former National Hockey League athletes who had retired due to medically diagnosed concussions suffered during their careers. The men discussed the physical and psychological symptoms they experienced as a result of their concussions and how the symptoms affected their professional careers, personal relationships, and quality of life. The former professional athletes related these symptoms to the turmoil that is ever present in their lives. These findings are of interest to athletes, coaches, sport administrators, family members, sport psychology practitioners, and medical professionals, as they highlight the severity of short- and long-term effects of concussions

Comments are closed for this article.