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
#101 Derian Hatcher
May 08 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I have coached for many years and there are some kids who simply take advantage of the smaller players and when they "hit" smaller players it is often a matter of simple physics (There are also players who have been taught NOT to take advantage of smaller players, but simply take the puck.) The smaller player often pays the price physically and also can be emotionally. Before some of you get on your soapbox and talk about "well if they can't take the physical part of the game, don't play it" (I have had many parents say this over the years, many of whom have never gone into a corner to battle for a puck with someone much bigger and stonger). But I always ask these parents the same question as I will as to those on this forum now; How about you (including the hockey mom's) go into a corner to retrive a puck against someone much, much bigger than you or stonger...say you against the size (but not the skill) of someone like Milan Lucic. Most parents I have interacted with have no clue what it is like to go into a corner or along the the boards with someone much bigger, but they seem to have no problem pontificating on what kids should do. IMO very, very few hockey Moms and Dads would have the stones to do what they expect minor hockey players to do. It all looks easy from the stands, doesn't it? Reminds me of the old Tiger Williams story where fans would ask him "Tiger, who REALLY is the toughest guy in the NHL" and he felt like saying, "Pal, from where you are standing, they're all tough".

Avatar
#102 Fresh Mess
May 08 2013, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

...AND THE KIDS ARE RECKLESS WITH THEIR STICKS 'CUZ THEY GROW UP WEARING FACEMASKS!!.....

AND THEY CRASH THE NET 'CUZ THEY KNOW THE GOALPOSTS ARE ONLY ON MAGNETS!!!.....

AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD QUIT BEING WHINERS AND PAY FOR KATZ' ARENA SO WE CAN BE WORLD CLASS AND REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN!.....

AND SEATBELTS TRAP PEOPLE IN BURNING CAR WRECKS ......AND...AND AND

Avatar
#103 Swede
May 08 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

And golly! Here's so more of that fancy research published in some journal called JAMA.

June 9, 2010, Vol 303, No. 22 >

Risk of Injury Associated With Body Checking Among Youth Ice Hockey Players FREE Carolyn A. Emery, PhD, BScPT; Jian Kang, PhD; Ian Shrier, MD, PhD; Claude Goulet, PhD; Brent E. Hagel, PhD; Brian W. Benson, MD, PhD; Alberto Nettel-Aguirre, PhD; Jenelle R. McAllister, MSc; Gavin M. Hamilton, MSc; Willem H. Meeuwisse, MD, PhD [+] Author Affiliations JAMA. 2010;303(22):2265-2272. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.755. Text Size: A A A Article Figures Tables References ABSTRACT ABSTRACT | METHODS | RESULTS | COMMENT | CONCLUSION | AUTHOR INFORMATION | REFERENCES

Context Ice hockey has one of the highest sport participation and injury rates in youth in Canada. Body checking is the predominant mechanism of injury in leagues in which it is permitted.

Objective To determine if risk of injury and concussion differ for Pee Wee (ages 11-12 years) ice hockey players in a league in which body checking is permitted (Alberta, Canada) vs a league in which body checking is not permitted (Quebec, Canada).

Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective cohort study conducted in Alberta and Quebec during the 2007-2008 Pee Wee ice hockey season. Participants (N = 2154) were players from teams in the top 60% of divisions of play.

Main Outcome Measures Incidence rate ratios adjusted for cluster based on Poisson regression for game- and practice-related injury and concussion.

Results Seventy-four Pee Wee teams from Alberta (n = 1108 players) and 76 Pee Wee teams from Quebec (n = 1046 players) completed the study. In total, there were 241 injuries (78 concussions) reported in Alberta (85 077 exposure-hours) and 91 injuries (23 concussions) reported in Quebec (82 099 exposure-hours). For game-related injuries, the Alberta vs Quebec incidence rate ratio was 3.26 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.31-4.60 [n = 209 and n = 70 for Alberta and Quebec, respectively]) for all injuries, 3.88 (95% CI, 1.91-7.89 [n = 73 and n = 20]) for concussion, 3.30 (95% CI, 1.77-6.17 [n = 51 and n = 16]) for severe injury (time loss, >7 days), and 3.61 (95% CI, 1.16-11.23 [n=14 and n=4]) for severe concussion (time loss, >10 days). The estimated absolute risk reduction (injuries per 1000 player-hours) that would be achieved if body checking were not permitted in Alberta was 2.84 (95% CI, 2.18-3.49) for all game-related injuries, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.40-1.04) for severe injuries, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.70-1.46) for concussion, and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.04-0.37) for severe concussion. There was no difference between provinces for practice-related injuries.

Conclusion Among 11- to 12-year-old ice hockey players, playing in a league in which body checking is permitted compared with playing in a league in which body checking is not permitted was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of all game-related injuries and the categories of concussion, severe injury, and severe concussion.

Avatar
#104 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 12:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Swede

of course hockey is a safer game without hitting. I don't think to many would argue that fact. The argument is if it is more dangerous to introduce hitting at the bantam level when kids are bigger faster stronger and the size difference is more dramatic than at the current pee wee level. I haven't seen any of these reports really comparing the 2. I still think they should go younger and not older for kids that want to learn to play the game with the physicality. And provide a much better system for the kids who do not.

Avatar
#105 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Truth wrote:

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.

You only had to read the abstracts!!!

"The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting checking in hockey players 15 years of age and younger as a means to reduce injuries."

from the body of the text:

Another Canadian study10 compared peewee-level players (ages 12 and 13 years) from a league that allowed body checking with another league that did not. Players in the league that allowed body checking had a fracture rate 12 times higher than the rate of the other league. Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players. Players in the same age group could vary significantly in the amount of force they could impart on another player and/or withstand from another player. In 1990, the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine reported that although the incidence of serious injuries at the mite and squirt level was quite low, serious injuries were noted at the peewee level. Therefore, they recommended banning body checking at the peewee level (ages 12 and 13 years) and below.11

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

and, again from the abstract:

"Studies consistently identify bodychecking as the primary mechanism associated with youth hockey injuries, including concussion. Policy to delay bodychecking until bantam league play (when participants are 13 to 14 years of age) will reduce the risks of injury and concussion in young ice hockey players. Bodychecking should be eliminated from non-elite youth ice hockey. The age at which bodychecking is introduced in competitive hockey leagues must be reconsidered. Both initiatives require policy change in many provinces/territories, and must be re-evaluated prospectively in light of emerging research."

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

Avatar
#106 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Derian Hatcher

I completely agree. If you're not willing to go into the corners with someone bigger and stronger maybe you should take up another sport. 99.9% of the time you will come out with a bruise at most.

Avatar
#107 Quicksilver ballet
May 08 2013, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

@Ducey

This is Oilersnation.com, not peeweehockeynation.com FFS.

Pardon me for thinking how this may affect the game down the road.

Little Billy this, little Billy that, stop trying to protect Billy if he's just not good enough. The sooner they know the truth about the game, the better. The bulb that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. Billy, and all those who came before him made their lifestyle choice.

Avatar
#108 A-Mc
May 08 2013, 12:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

This is Oilersnation.com, not peeweehockeynation.com FFS.

Pardon me for thinking how this may affect the game down the road.

Little Billy this, little Billy that, stop trying to protect Billy if he's just not good enough. The sooner they know the truth about the game, the better. The bulb that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. Billy, and all those who came before him made their lifestyle choice.

There might be a fundamental difference between people that revealed itself in what you just said.

"Pardon me for thinking how this may affect the Game down the road."

I can't speak for anyone else, but imo this issue is about protecting our children, not the game.

The worst thing that would happen to the game is that kids wouldnt make pro so early, they'd likely stay in junior/ahl levels for a little longer.

Avatar
#109 Greg
May 08 2013, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Obviously hitting vs no hitting is going to reduce the injury risk...but its also common sense that the players with a year of hitting experience are going to be a very real danger to kids without hitting experience. So its fine to compare only the injury rates in the two years where hitting is allowed and not allowed (AB vs QC). If you look further the injury rate in Bantam in AB goes down, vs a rise injury rate in Bantam in QC...so all that is being accomplished is moving the injury bubble.

What that injury bubble tells me is that there needs to be a year where all the first year players introduced to hitting can play only against players of that same birth year. In order to accommodate a Bantam 13 league or something of that ilk. Peewee 11-12 no hitting Bantam 13 Hitting introduced Bantam 14-15 Midget 16-17 Opportunity for Bantam 15 year olds to try out for MIdget AAA only...the way it was 7 years ago . If player safety comes first that would be the recommended model, along with the age change. Problem is dont expect HA or HC to give in to Major Junior and eliminate the Midget 15 in order to isolate a year for hitting introduction...

Avatar
#110 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

This is Oilersnation.com, not peeweehockeynation.com FFS.

Pardon me for thinking how this may affect the game down the road.

Little Billy this, little Billy that, stop trying to protect Billy if he's just not good enough. The sooner they know the truth about the game, the better. The bulb that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. Billy, and all those who came before him made their lifestyle choice.

will it get safer?

Avatar
#111 Quicksilver ballet
May 08 2013, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

@A-Mc

This is a financial based decision. They're not out for the safety of little Billy. Their concern on this is to reduce the drop out rate of kids in that demographic. More kids in the game is more money to those in control/who benifit. Bottom line is, it's all about the almighty dollar. This safety issue veil, is most likely a Trojan Horse.

Avatar
#112 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Romulus' Apotheosis

I understand that hockey without hitting is less dangerous than normal hockey. The quotes touch on my earlier point of the size difference of kids playing each other, by this point players should be well-versed on how to play with contact involved. Instead it recommends no-hitting at all. If you don't want to die in a car accident, never get in a car.

What I want to see:

A: Contact in Peewee and forward

B: No contact in Peewee, contact in Bantam and forward

C: No contact in Peewee, no contact in Bantam, contact in Midget

Compare the total injuries in each case, if case C is 1/3 of case A, and case B is 2/3 of case A, there is absolutely zero benefit of delaying the introduction of hitting. My own belief is the injuries in case A would be highest in Peewee, case B highest in Bantam, and Case C highest in Midget. I would also argue that Case A would have injuries of the least severity (when compared to other actual injuries, not total quantity of injuries) due to the introduction of hitting while the players are smaller, slower, and weaker. Case C would have a high rate of severe injuries due to the larger, faster, and stronger players suddenly allowed to hit coupled with the fact that these players have learned for 10 years how to play hockey without contact in it and will be an easy target for those who now know how.

No-hit hockey is entirely different than normal hockey (contact involved).

Let's compare injuries in Tennis (no contact) to chess (also no contact).

Avatar
#113 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

A great breakout in no-hit hockey: Defenceman pass puck to winger on defensive half-boards, winger tips puck to far winger streaking in the middle of ice around the blueline to split defensive coverage and allow the center to get on the far side of the opposing d-man for a quick break or odd-man rush.

This same play in hit hockey: Defenceman pass puck to winger on defensive half-boards, winger tips puck to far winger streaking in the middle of the ice around the blueline to split defensive coverage. Defenseman steps up and far winger left looking like Lars Eller.

Avatar
#114 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Truth

Instead of imagining cases and their outcomes, why not read the reports?

Avatar
#115 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I just heard they are removing keeping score in soccer up until they are 12 to avoid hurting kids feelings.

I would be interested in taking a poll to see how many people that are anti contact are also anti spanking and anti score keeping.

Avatar
#116 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Wow people are fired up about this!

Seriously though maybe little Johnny or Billy, when learning how to bodycheck, can teach Jordan Eberle how to hit.

HI WAYNE!!!

(This thread is good at distracting us from the complete suckitude of The Oilers)

Avatar
#117 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Cody anderson wrote:

I just heard they are removing keeping score in soccer up until they are 12 to avoid hurting kids feelings.

I would be interested in taking a poll to see how many people that are anti contact are also anti spanking and anti score keeping.

What? I didn't know they do that in children's soccer. I played both hockey & soccer as a kid.

I was small & weak but I still learned how to score & hit.

Avatar
#118 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Swede

Oh you and your facts & stats. Angry people are to angry & busy to care about logic & studies.

Actually this is an interesting discussion & I think there is more than one correct answer in all of this.

Avatar
#119 Lego
May 08 2013, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I bet if you did a study you would find that injuries from bicycle accidents increase dramatically when training wheels are removed, should we mandate that kids under 13 must have training wheels?

Hockey is a physical sport injuries will happen, but I think the sooner body checking is introduced the better kids will be at keeping their head up and avoiding the big blow up hits. Ever wonder how a skinny kid like Gretzky or a runt like St Louis made it so far when the game was much more physical and dirtier than it is today?

I remember my son's first year peewee tryouts his friend who was the fastest player on the team had a habit of skating full speed with his head down up the middle of the ice. Us coaches had tried to break him of this habit since he started in novice but it fell on deaf ears. In the first try out scrimmage he got caught by a second year player with a huge but clean hit. Luckily he wasn't hurt and didn't miss a shift but he certainly learned the lesson that we had been trying to teach him for 4 years.

Had it been bantam instead of peewee where the size, speed and force would have been greater I'm not sure he would have escaped injury.

In Edmonton there has been an alternative for players and parents that don't want body contact for several years, it's called the NHL (no hit league) I'm not sure why we have remove the choice for all players.

Avatar
#120 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm one of the kids who quit hockey right before joining pee wees because I was scared of the hitting. I grew up and by no means a "wimp" now or small either but back then I was always the smallest on the teams so there was a large mental factor. I really loved playing hockey and still do, but wish I could have kept playing. Who knows, I could have developed into the soft winger with size(penner) that some of you think is all the Oilers need, haha.

If hitting was in hockey from day one (was called Richard back then, not sure what it's called now) I wouldn't have been scared of it as most kids are on their butts half the game then anyways, most times from accidental collisions. I don't think that is the answer though as our now bleeding hearts politically correct society wouldn't allow it.

I like the idea of separating kids on size/skill rather than just age. I also like the idea of having hitting leagues and non-hitting leagees for the same groups.

Avatar
#121 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Truth

Let's see the detailed studies

This is my point. Everyone is so sure they know the answer, but people have spent considerable time and money researching the answer to the very questions we are asking.

Why not wait until we've seen the results of the research before proclaiming your sure knowledge?

My understanding is that the research used was intended to look in to the overall health and injury prospects of kids/players moving forward (ie. as they get older) after having played contact peewee vs non-hitting peewee.

For them to change their minds only 10 years after implementing contact peewee in the first place speaks volumes as far as I am concerned.

Avatar
#122 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I like the idea of having a 1 yr age bracket for the 1st year of hitting so everyone is within 1 yr of the other players and they all have the same amount of experience taking and giving hits.

I also like the idea of having more training and resources available for coaches and would even be receptive to a mandatory Hockey Alberta course before the first season of contact for every kid to learn about safe clean contact.

These are steps I could see reducing injuries to young players. Moving the age out until the kids are bigger, faster, and stronger is a recipe for more injuries at that age, and at that age the injuries are going to be more serious. Then they are going to be faced with a bigger problem.

There is also the option of changing the leagues. Istead of having boy's hockey and girl's hockey just have contact and non-contact and every kid can play in the league they want to play in.

Avatar
#123 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Cody anderson wrote:

I just heard they are removing keeping score in soccer up until they are 12 to avoid hurting kids feelings.

I would be interested in taking a poll to see how many people that are anti contact are also anti spanking and anti score keeping.

You don't find it odd, I take it, that the countries that produce the best football players use this model?

It seems they have managed to maintain their competitive edge by developing fundamentals and leaving the parental desire for ego-victories at the door.

Avatar
#124 Truth
May 08 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Romulus' Apotheosis

I have!

They tell me that hitting in hockey causes more injury than no-hit hockey and that hockey causes more injuries than soccer. Big surprise! I don't see that as relevant to the introduction of hitting in hockey. What age is it best to introduce hitting into hockey? When the players are smaller and less severe impacts are probable, while they are still learning the game? Or when the players are larger and more sever impacts are probable, when the players have already learned how to play the game (incorrectly)?

Avatar
#125 Ducey
May 08 2013, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

This is a financial based decision. They're not out for the safety of little Billy. Their concern on this is to reduce the drop out rate of kids in that demographic. More kids in the game is more money to those in control/who benifit. Bottom line is, it's all about the almighty dollar. This safety issue veil, is most likely a Trojan Horse.

Ridiculous.

Did you know that Hockey Alberta has done repeated surveys of parents and coaches? Did you know those surveys indicated that those groups wanted hitting reduced from the game? Do you have a kid that plays Pee Wee? Do you coach?

It has nothing to do with money. Its is about protecting kids from brain injury.

Avatar
#126 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Truth wrote:

@ Romulus' Apotheosis

I have!

They tell me that hitting in hockey causes more injury than no-hit hockey and that hockey causes more injuries than soccer. Big surprise! I don't see that as relevant to the introduction of hitting in hockey. What age is it best to introduce hitting into hockey? When the players are smaller and less severe impacts are probable, while they are still learning the game? Or when the players are larger and more sever impacts are probable, when the players have already learned how to play the game (incorrectly)?

You haven't.

All these studies recommend introducing hitting at an older age to reduce injury and long term effects of injury.

You simply don't accept these findings or aren't bothering to read them.

Avatar
#127 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

You don't find it odd, I take it, that the countries that produce the best football players use this model?

It seems they have managed to maintain their competitive edge by developing fundamentals and leaving the parental desire for ego-victories at the door.

I think not keeping score when kids are young ruins their competitve spirit, which is one of the best parts of athletics. I want my kids to strive to be the best at whatever they choose to do.

I think this also teaches kids to deal with failure.

I think society as a whole is coddling and devloping an entire generation of soft, whimpy, whiney kids that will grow into adults that have trouble coping in the real world.

Avatar
#128 Ducey
May 08 2013, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Truth wrote:

@ Romulus' Apotheosis

I have!

They tell me that hitting in hockey causes more injury than no-hit hockey and that hockey causes more injuries than soccer. Big surprise! I don't see that as relevant to the introduction of hitting in hockey. What age is it best to introduce hitting into hockey? When the players are smaller and less severe impacts are probable, while they are still learning the game? Or when the players are larger and more sever impacts are probable, when the players have already learned how to play the game (incorrectly)?

There is merit to your position that introducing hitting earlier will teach kids how to avoid hits. I hold the same view.

However, the thing that it ignores is that kids who have learned to play with contact, (and even those who initiate the contact), at the lower levels are going to suffer more injuries with contact than without.

So you will have higher rates of injuries at novice, atom, Pee wee and so on.

It also ignores the fact that the process of learning how to avoid hits is going to be a dangerous process, not matter what the level. There are kids at all levels that cruise around looking to blow people up.

So what you are advocating is that we should repeatedly expose out younger kids to higher rates of brain injuries so that they may more easily avoid a more severe injury when they play Bantam. From that perspective its a little non-sensical.

The bottom line is that parents are not willing to put up with the risk of injury to their kid's brains just so they can learn to deal with hitting. Its just not worth it.

Avatar
#129 Quicksilver ballet
May 08 2013, 01:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ducey

Nothing to do with money, eh.

Differing the decision for another 2/3 yrs (pee wee eligible yrs) means how much money will remain in the system?

Has nothing to do with the twenty thousand kids in Alberta alone? Twenty Thousand kids playing hockey for another 3 yrs (if they don't quit till bantam) is a lot of money there Ducey. Each of those kids parent(s) contribute $1500-$2500 per year if you include fuel,practices,tournaments etc, etc.

Even if it retains half of the kids in pee wee for 3 more yrs, it's still a serious amount of money. Is this at all possible Ducey? To think it has nothing to do with this decision, is well, like you mentioned, redonkulous.

Avatar
#130 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
Cody anderson wrote:

I think not keeping score when kids are young ruins their competitve spirit, which is one of the best parts of athletics. I want my kids to strive to be the best at whatever they choose to do.

I think this also teaches kids to deal with failure.

I think society as a whole is coddling and devloping an entire generation of soft, whimpy, whiney kids that will grow into adults that have trouble coping in the real world.

Yes. of course you do.

However, as I said earlier, we are far too prone to push morality plays onto decisions like this.

Your concerns have almost nothing to do with what is at stake here and have not bothered to take the relevant arguments into account. You are simply offering a reactionary cultural spasm.

The stereotypical "helicopter parent" "everyone is special" vs. "feminization of culture" "decline of the manly west" yadayada debate has nothing to do with what is at stake here.

The development models being pursued by the CSA are all about breeding winners.

Read that again. Winners.

They aren't interested in giving away candy and participation ribbons to everyone, nor are they interested in parading children around as winners/losers.

This is some kind of cultural fantasy that allows people to get angry about something very far from the matter at hand.

What they are interested in is maximizing the time spent with kids when they are most pliable to learning skill sets needed to WIN when they are older. What they have found is that those skill sets are best developed in an environment that concentrates on them and treats the score indifferently.

Notice that indifference is radically different from the highly invested "everyone is a winner" model.

Avatar
#131 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 01:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Romulus' Apotheosis wrote:

You don't find it odd, I take it, that the countries that produce the best football players use this model?

It seems they have managed to maintain their competitive edge by developing fundamentals and leaving the parental desire for ego-victories at the door.

Why punish the 49/50 parents that want their children to learn teamwork to achieve goals, overcome failure, that effort produces results and on and on all to leave the "parental desire for ego-victories at the door" for the one bad parent out of 50, when different forms of political correctness is weeding that out on its own anyways?

The vast majority of these kids will have quit by that age anyways, whether they keep scoring or not.

Instead let's teach kids to just go out and have fun for yourself and do whatever you want out there with no consequences. Don't bother being a good teammate or try to achieve anything of value. You know, have society working together to better society in other words. Instill that at a young age so that it is set in for life. But it's ok because less than 1% of the kids using this format are doing it succesfully elsewhere being the best football players in the world. That's all that matters, the one percenters.

Avatar
#132 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Tikkanese

How have you managed to conclude that not keeping score is anathema from learning "teamwork" how to "achieve goals, overcome failure... produce results" etc?

The whole point is that there is more going in on learning than a simple, isolated and highly contingent event outcome.

i.e., those things you covet are learned and are learned better in a context that focuses on them and treats those highly contingent and singular outcomes with indifference.

Avatar
#133 Truth
May 08 2013, 02:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ducey

I am advocating that young players learn the game properly from a young age. Yes, this will expose them to a higher quantity of events that have a higher risk of injury, but it is being done in the effort that risk for serious injury is reduced overall.

No one wants to see their child injured, but if parents are not willing to risk injury to their kid's in any way why enroll them in any sport?

Imagine life as a kid with parents that completely minimize any and all risks for you. I honestly don't know if I'd be the same person. I was involved in hockey, lacrosse, motocross, watersports (skiing/wakeboarding), sking/snowboarding, etc. All relatively "high risk" activities. Would I be the same if I had been not allowed in those but only into soccer, basketball, and board games?

100% it was worth it for me. And yes, I have broken a dozen bones, separated both shoulders, too many sprains and strains to count, and concussion wasn't even a word when I was younger. There are risks in everything, it is to which extent are you willing to expose yourself or your children to for their enjoyment/betterment. The risks are high in hockey compared to other sports but incredibly low overall. I don't think anyone is advocating for children's base jumping to go mainstream.

Avatar
#134 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 02:41PM
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.

From Gregor:

@JasonGregor: "The highest level of peewee kids had more concussions than house league or lower level." Dr. Caroline Emery from U of C study. #nochecking

Avatar
#135 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Romulus' Apotheosis

How is a kid is going to learn those things when the most obvious and tangible point to playing sports is treated with indifference? Care to elaborate? How does making every kid on the field touch the ball before you can shoot help teach teamwork or anything if it doesn't matter if there is no point to taking the shot? You're just teaching them to go through the motions with no real goals.

Avatar
#136 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Tikkanese wrote:

How is a kid is going to learn those things when the most obvious and tangible point to playing sports is treated with indifference? Care to elaborate? How does making every kid on the field touch the ball before you can shoot help teach teamwork or anything if it doesn't matter if there is no point to taking the shot? You're just teaching them to go through the motions with no real goals.

1. do children engaged in an outdoors club, or Scouts, or a school band, etc. where there is no such thing as a "score" not learn those things you covet, i.e., "teamwork" how to "achieve goals, overcome failure... produce results" etc?

your POV on learning, development, acculturation, etc. is extraordinarily narrow if you limit it to single, highly contingent event outcomes.

2. Why do you thing treating the score with indifference = treating anything else related to the development of a athlete with indifference?

3. why are you limiting "goals", ie outcomes, to single, highly contingent event outcomes?

The CSA is trying to de-emphasize singular outcomes in order to build a better process that results in better outcomes down the road.

Avatar
#137 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Truth

Would I be the same if I had been not allowed in those but only into soccer, basketball, and board games?

Reference basketball again in the context of it being a non-contact sport and you and I will probably have to fight.

Avatar
#138 Ducey
May 08 2013, 03:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

Nothing to do with money, eh.

Differing the decision for another 2/3 yrs (pee wee eligible yrs) means how much money will remain in the system?

Has nothing to do with the twenty thousand kids in Alberta alone? Twenty Thousand kids playing hockey for another 3 yrs (if they don't quit till bantam) is a lot of money there Ducey. Each of those kids parent(s) contribute $1500-$2500 per year if you include fuel,practices,tournaments etc, etc.

Even if it retains half of the kids in pee wee for 3 more yrs, it's still a serious amount of money. Is this at all possible Ducey? To think it has nothing to do with this decision, is well, like you mentioned, redonkulous.

Where does all this money go to?

It goes for icetime, uniforms, insurance, etc. And its $600 a year.

You think Hockey Alberta is getting rid of hitting so that the City of Edmonton can make more money selling ice?

Hockey Alberta is getting rid of hitting so PetroCan can make more on fuel?

Why don't you come up with a theory that aliens are controlling it. It would make more sense.

Avatar
#139 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Romulus' Apotheosis

Sports are sports. Scouts, band camp etc are not sports or even all that similar for that matter. Those however do all have tangible goals that require teamwork to achieve. Whether it is building camp, doing charity work together, winning a recital or whatever bands do, or simply practicing and eventually playing a song perfectly together just because. You can't do those things in sports. Executing a set play to score a meaningless goal doesn't mean anything to anyone.

You are failing miserably to explain how sports without keeping score has tangible goals or how it will teach using teamwork to achieve goals and all of those other good things. You are pretty much only trolling at this point.

YAY we each scored a goal or did our part in preventing goals! We all did our part; goalie, defence and forwards! We won the game/season/championship or saw and learned from seeing how the other team did all those things together properly and won! Wait, what? No we didn't because we don't keep score? It doesn't matter if the goalie Timmy saved the shot or not? YAY nobody lost so we are all winners!

YAY we all contributed and built this house properly and to code(because Health and Safety is keeping score) so this family can live a happy life! Wait, what? It doesn't matter if we tried? Doesn't matter if Timmy used glue instead of nails? Nobody's keeping score? We showed up and swumg hammers and did stuff aimlessly! YAY we are all winners, especially this family who owns the house!

Avatar
#140 Thinker
May 08 2013, 04:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

It's stupid to ban hitting. I played minor hockey about 3 years ago, and I definitely feel that I was safer after having started hitting at a younger age. First of all the effects of concussions is overstated, as your average joe doesn't take the same number of head blows as a pro football player. And if we are scared of concussions, why wait until the kids are big and fast enough to cause damage intentionally. Bantam is the biggest size descrepency, as half the kids have hit puberty, and therefore it is the most dangerous. All the extra two years will accomplish is give the kids more time to get accustomed to skaing with their head down, and playing recklessly. At the younger levels, the big hits are the accidental collisions away from the puck, not those tied to hitting directly. I liken the situation to just giving a sixteen year old their liscence with having had a learners. Its stupid. The injuries in bantam will skyrocket, as the kid are thrown into the fire.

Plus there is a no hit league.

Avatar
#141 Quicksilver ballet
May 08 2013, 04:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Ducey wrote:

Where does all this money go to?

It goes for icetime, uniforms, insurance, etc. And its $600 a year.

You think Hockey Alberta is getting rid of hitting so that the City of Edmonton can make more money selling ice?

Hockey Alberta is getting rid of hitting so PetroCan can make more on fuel?

Why don't you come up with a theory that aliens are controlling it. It would make more sense.

I just mentioned a possible motive for a change like this, and I think it's valid. Ask yourself, how much money is involved when it comes to kids playing 2/3 more years? It was you who waved the flag and quit/resorted to your whole Alien theory. If that's all you have to counter my argument, give me $20.00 i'll give you 2 more attempts to redeem yourself.

Be better Ducey, that effort was pitiful.

Avatar
#142 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 04:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Tikkanese

You are basically saying in one case the things you covet can be developed absent keeping score but in another they can't.

However, you've offered nothing other than your own sense that the drive to excel, work together and learn dies on the vine in sports. Magically apparently.

Except that we've already run the test models.

This isn't an abstract question.

Those models that employ a skills development orientation produce exceptional results, competitive results down the line.

There is no evidence athletes emerge less competitive on this model.

Read about it. You seem to know nothing about the actual arguments being used here...

http://www.canadasoccer.com/wellness-to-world-cup-s14682

http://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/2013/02/16/ontario_youth_soccer_to_stop_keeping_score_standings.html

http://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/2013/02/27/canadas_david_edgar_applaud_noscore_soccer_for_kids.html

What's happening here... despite claims to the contrary is that people are starting to take youth athletic development much more seriously.

This isn't some hands-off, never get dirty model. This is a laboratory for building winners. These people aren't concerned mothers. They are trying to gain a competitive edge.

Avatar
#143 tileguy
May 08 2013, 05:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Cody anderson wrote:

I just heard they are removing keeping score in soccer up until they are 12 to avoid hurting kids feelings.

I would be interested in taking a poll to see how many people that are anti contact are also anti spanking and anti score keeping.

Were you spanked as a child? do you spank your children? Survival of the fittest, now eat your nails and get out there and drive somebody into the boards.

Avatar
#144 Ducey
May 08 2013, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

I just mentioned a possible motive for a change like this, and I think it's valid. Ask yourself, how much money is involved when it comes to kids playing 2/3 more years? It was you who waved the flag and quit/resorted to your whole Alien theory. If that's all you have to counter my argument, give me $20.00 i'll give you 2 more attempts to redeem yourself.

Be better Ducey, that effort was pitiful.

"possible motive"??

When someone tells you why they are doing something (in this case for safety) and then you don't believe them because of a "possible motive" that has no evidentiary basis and makes absolutely no sense, then you are an idiot - kind of like the people who advance the alien theories.

Was that simple enough for you?

Go back to dreaming about Weber for Omark.

Avatar
#145 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Article 1 only talks about LTPD based on biological age. I said in an earlier post that it's a good solution to the actual topic of this article we're going off topic on.

Article 2 does not prove or explain anything. It says there's some magical study done somewhere but doesn't explain or show any of this study. It does say there is a problem with some coaches and coaching styles. I'm not disputing that, but the fixes to that can also be done while keeping scores. It also says that the players, coaches and parents are all going to still keep score for themselves. This article does have this quote “Are we doing a disservice to our children by not allowing them the experience of losing? I don’t know the answer to that.” Shouldn't that be proven in this magical evidence?

Article 3 same as above.

All taking scoring out does is instantly change coaching strategies of poorly in the first place trained coaches. Yes that bad coaching needs to be changed but that can all be done without the drastic measure of taking scoring out. It's a quick solution that isn't necessary and may be doing more harm than good in the long run.

I've proven keeping scores has tangible goals and promotes all of those good things we want kids learning. You've proven taking scoring away might be doing a disservice by not allowing them the experience of losing. All of the other changes these articles are talking about should be done anyways and keeping score doesn't affect those changes one way or the other.

Avatar
#146 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 05:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Isn't the topic of discussion here hitting in pee wee? Why are people still talking about about eliminating scores?

"I know, I don't have a really valid reason to keep hitting around for little kids, so I'll quickly change the topic to something almost entirely unrelated."

Avatar
#147 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 05:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Romulus' Apotheosis

There is public skating, playing pass in the driveway, stickhandling drills and all of those kinds of things to develop children's skills.

I would not put my kid in a sport that did not keep score, because in my opinion it is no longer a sport.

That being said, I first and foremost want to make sure my children have fun playing sports.

I reward good actions or hard work, not the result. To my kids, and most I have seen the result is what motivates them. They will go to the net to score a goal not because that is a good place to be later on if you happen to make it to a competitve level.

Avatar
#148 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

Sorry bud, I found this equally pathetic and along the same lines. Both in my opinion are a knee jerk reaction from over protective parents.

Avatar
#149 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 05:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Cody anderson wrote:

Sorry bud, I found this equally pathetic and along the same lines. Both in my opinion are a knee jerk reaction from over protective parents.

Except that you have the rationale entirely wrong for eliminating scores.

Removing hitting is about protecting children, eliminating scores is about allowing the kids to focus on developing their skills and teamwork without the distraction of keeping score for a few years. It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings". Kind of like how sushi chef trainees don't get to even touch fish for the first three years of their training. The idea that it's done to protect feelings is an invention of those who disagree.

In other words - one is only about safety, the other is a difference of opinion about how to teach kids a sport.

Avatar
#150 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 05:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Tikkanese

you don't read very carefully apparently.

1. if you agree with their plans, including no scorekeeping for younger kids, what is your objection?

2/3 you seemed to know so little about it, I figured I should start you out slow.

First. there is a lot of empirical evidence. As you seem to elide it, I'll state it again:

In every single place this model has been adapted all your doomsday scenarios are absent.

As far as studies on LTPD, here is some literature:

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/view/70176/58365

http://www.nsca-lift.org/ContentTemplates/PublicationArticleDetail.aspx?id=2147485991

http://hollandiasoccer.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=Abridged+LTPD.PDF&tabid=116&mid=535

Comments are closed for this article.