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
#1 Zamboni Driver
May 09 2013, 08:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props

I am absolutely certain those worrying about the "P*ssification" of hockey (or whatever Cherry nonsense you want to spew) DO NOT HAVE KIDS.

Do this geniuses.

Remove the word "hockey player" from your vocabulary.

Try this one instead.

Children

These are 11 year old CHILDREN

Really think they NEED body contact being taught mostly by Dads who were too dumb not to stare longer at their shoes when they asked for more volunteer coaches?!

They're 11 year olds. Not hockey players.

Kids.

Get over yourselves.

Avatar
#2 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 12:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props
TheGunnShow wrote:

I posted similar comments to Gregor on twitter, but I felt like I had to say them here as well:

I come from the opposite camp of kids quitting the game because checking is too much for them.

I almost quit the game because there WASN'T checking.

Being a bigger kid in a no contact game is equally as heartbreaking and frustrating when you get punished because some kid bumps into you and falls down. There were many post game car rides that involved tears because of it.

Free the Giants.

This HAS to be a joke.

Avatar
#3 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
#4 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
#5 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
#6 Travis Dakin
May 08 2013, 12:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

There should be no hitting in any house division. That's when kids are just playlng for fun and exercise. At that age, immature, talentless kids with their first dose of testosterone tend to be a little reckless throwing their weight around (which can be a huge problem with teens developing at such varying rates). As a guy that was always one of the bigger, heavier, harder hitting guys growing up, I can say that it has no place in house league... At any age.

Save it for the rep players. The players that WANT to hit, better be good enough to play in a league that has hitting. If you can't play hockey well enough for a rep or select team, then you shouldn't have to worry about hitting. Skills and safety first. Check the ego at the door.

And don't give me the bs about not being fair to kids who can't afford to play rep. If they're good enough, they'll find a way to get them in. Otherwise, the poor kid will be just fine playing hockey without hitting.

Avatar
#7 Travis Sarvas
May 08 2013, 12:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Body contact should be introduced earlier, not later! If you grow up playing full contact you will be better equipped to dealing with checking throughout your playing career, As opposed to getting a wake-up call in Bantam! Big, hormone fuelled teens given the go ahead to try checking for the first time.. great plan. Like you mentioned, give the coaches the proper tools. Teach the players to play heads up, and to properly take a check. Teach the players that checking is for removing a player from the puck, not for revenge. The earlier they learn that, the better!

Avatar
#8 @Oilanderp
May 08 2013, 02:00AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

Hitting is part of hockey. These kids aren't being hit by NHLers. They are being hit by their peers. The sooner they learn that you can't just stare at the puck all day the better they will be. Smart players will learn to gtfo of the way, deke, dump, etc. Big players learn how to be effective taking the man. Its hockey. Stop trying to shield kids from the game that is played every day on streets, rinks, hallways, even classrooms with the desks shifted to the sides,you name it. These parents who want to change our game for "our kids sake" are the same parents who litigate teachers for kicking the ass of their no-respect punk-ass big-mouth out-of-control child.

The game does evolve, but don't try to artificially shield children from things. I understand the desire to but you're simply delaying the inevitable. Teach them about the real world instead. Big objects have big force. Don't be there when they are. Play hockey. Score goals. Make hits. Fall down. Get up. No big deal.

Keep your head up, and your stick on the ice. Are these hallowed words no longer valid?

Cripes I remember going to the playground with 8 of my friends and we would have a rock fight. That's right. And we didn't wear equipment. And our parents didn't whine because they weren't there. And we loved it. And I am alive.

Play hockey.

Avatar
#9 K_Mart
May 08 2013, 06:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

I agree that house league shouldn't have hitting. For kids who are only playing for fun there is no need.

Also, with teens developing at such varying rates, hitting in rep leagues should be introduced earlier when there isn't a huge gap in size between the youngest smallest kid and the oldest and biggest kid. Furthermore, hockey leagues from novice to bantam should be divided better as far as age is concerned. Ever wonder why 80% of NHLers were born between January and April?

If you're a January baby you probably remember how dominant you were in second year atom or second year novice. And if you're a December baby I bet you remember struggling in first year novice and first year atom. The difference between a 12yr old and a 9 yr old is dramatic and I'm sure the prospect of being hit by a 6'0 180lb enigma when you're only 4'8" 100lbs is quite intimidating.Not only that, but the other guy has already had 365 extra days to practice hitting.

Bottom line is that hitting should be introduced earlier when there isn't such a huge variety in size between peers, and only in the rep leagues(A AA and AAA). The leagues can minimize size variation between peers by having hockey cutoff dates be only one year apart instead of two. Currently there is a 3yr gap between second year January babies and first year December babies.

Avatar
#10 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 08:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

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.

Avatar
#11 FireguyD3
May 08 2013, 08:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Long time reader first post.

My son just finished Pee-Wee and will be in Bantam next year. I have been a coach since Novice. No need to take hitting out of the game, Education and awareness are the keys. I teach my kids when to hit and when not to hit. Granted they don't always listen but for the most part it works. Also hitting was part of our practice from day one. Yes we had injuries, but more due to the fact that other kids would take the "dirty" hit, not so much the kid not being ready for it. Refs need to be better educated so they can put a stop to the bad hits early in the game. Kids see that refs are not making calls and they feed off that, and as the game goes on the hits get worse, my kids were no better, you can preach clean hits on the bench all game, if they get a chance and they know they are not getting a penalty they will take it. Don't take hitting out of the game, educate sooner, give coaches more tools to teach the game and educate young ref's to make the calls sooner. Keep the game fun for everyone!

Avatar
#12 Bruce McCurdy
May 08 2013, 08:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

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.

Avatar
#13 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 08:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Looks like we've got a classic case of duelling culture panics!

These kinds of cases always amuse me for the way they draw out broader cultural narratives of anxiety that inevitably get imposed on a particular situation.

In this case, we could easily see the "bubble wrap" set squaring off against the "decline of the manly west" set.

I'm not sure either of these panics have much to say to this particular case.

Empirical evidence is really the only thing that matters here.

"Skill" as a catch-all is both far more important to hockey than checking and finds a more receptive partner for learning in early development.

The risk to injury at a young age is both higher and least necessary to hockey development.

Avatar
#14 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
#15 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
#16 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
#17 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
#18 Tayranchula
May 08 2013, 08:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Im not 100% in favour with this for this one and only reason.

When I played peewee thats when we learned how to protect ourselves from being hit. How to absorb the check etc. etc.. When I moved up to the next level I was very small (never hit puberty) and I was playing agianst kids that had already outweighed me by 30 pounds and had a couple inches. The only reason I wasnt sent in to the stand from a hit was learning how to take and give hits with kids the same size and the same maturity level as me.

I think there are going to be alot more injuries in older age groups because of this. The only way to get rid of injuries is to get rid of hitting which I dont like.

Avatar
#19 Oilersman
May 07 2013, 11:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Fist time for everything. I guess maybe it's time. I disagree though.

Avatar
#20 bwar
May 07 2013, 11:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I'm surprised the NHL doesn't take an approach similar to the NFL where they are teaching kids to play safer and encouraging coaches to take an active role in ensuring player safety. In my mind this is more of a "lets just deal with this later" attitude.

Avatar
#21 TheGunnShow
May 08 2013, 12:21AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

I posted similar comments to Gregor on twitter, but I felt like I had to say them here as well:

I come from the opposite camp of kids quitting the game because checking is too much for them.

I almost quit the game because there WASN'T checking.

Being a bigger kid in a no contact game is equally as heartbreaking and frustrating when you get punished because some kid bumps into you and falls down. There were many post game car rides that involved tears because of it.

Free the Giants.

Avatar
#22 kgo
May 08 2013, 01:01AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

A very devisive issue, even within my own mind.

I remember being nervous to play hitting hockey.....Then overnight being one of the best most natural hitters on the ice, despite being a head shorter than half the guys.

But then I got too good at it, every time a guy put his head down I would destroy him, apart from the odd charge here and there with mostly clean hits. And I loved every minute of it. I loved punishing people, I loved how everyone on the other team wanted to kill me. I would run the smallest guy on the team, then the next shift run the biggest guy on the team.

Thinking back on this It was terrible, I probably caused a lot of concussions to kids that never were intended to play the game so seriously.

I think we a gradual progression of hitting. that would be near impossible to implement but there's merit to both arguments.

Introduce the kids to it early so it becomes a natural part of their game, but don't subject them to unnecessary injury

Avatar
#23 The Oilers Shot Clock
May 08 2013, 02:21AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Rock fights were so awesome. I remember those.

Avatar
#24 NewfoundlandOil
May 08 2013, 05:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I agree with this decision. I see a few comments that checking is a part of hockey. Well it is at most advanced levels but is generally not a part of the game at most recreational levels.

When I play rec hockey with the boys we don't check, because each of us has to go to work the next day. Now that's not to say it doesn't get chippy from time to time. Similarly I don't want my kids exposed to a higher risk of injury just so they can go out and play rec hockey. They have to go to school the next day and I just don't see the point if these kids aren't playing at an elite level where they have been properly trained.

There is a big size difference in kids at the PeeWee level in both height and weight and I just don't think kids this age have the discretion necessary to throw a clean hit versus a dirty one.

We need to stop treating minor hockey like these kids are going pro. Most are not and player safety needs to be paramount.

This isn't going to make the kids "soft" so lets stop with the Don Cherry already.

I agree with Bantam as a reasonable age and also think Travis Dakin has a good perspective on it. Leave it to the skill players if their parents feel the risk is worth the reward. Otherwise let kids have fun playing the game without unnecessary risk of injury.

Rock fights at age 8 on the other hand....have at 'er. That sh$t is just fun!

Avatar
#25 106 and 106
May 08 2013, 05:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@TheGunnShow

Sure bud. Try being the 4'7 65 pound kid who gets hits squarely crunched into the numbers time and time again by the "farm-kids."

The STOP signs were a good call on the backs of the jerseys, but officiating and coaching need to factor in too.

I agree with the decision.

(I played 3 years after Peewee but too many reckless hits pulled me out of the game).

Avatar
#26 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 06:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

How long until the over protective whimpy parents of today's society change high school football to flag football?

Will we allow them to make boxing and MMA illegal?

If you are too scared to allow your kids to get hit then put them in non contact sports. Don't put them in contact sports and then try changing the sport.

My obvious prediction: Without contact in Peewee hockey injuries to Peewee players will go down. Then at Bantam age when the kids are bigger and faster injuries will increase. Instead of reinstating contact in Peewee they will look at removing contact from Bantam.

Pathetic!

Avatar
#27 DrunkGuyTy
May 08 2013, 06:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@@Oilanderp

X 2

I'm of the belief you bring it into the game sooner rather than later. It is one of the skills of the game that some people at some point was less important. But is is a skill that is part of this great game.

And the pussification continues.

Avatar
#28 JonnyK
May 08 2013, 08:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Instead of moving the hitting age back, remove it completely. Let the kids start in flyweight. By doing this you remove the big shock of playing contact hockey, because let's face it there's a pile of kids who shy away from hockey once hitting is involved. I'm not saying lets let 6 year olds kick the snot out of each other, instead show them the proper way to take and recieve a hit when they're young. How much damage could these kids do anyways? All you do by moving the hitting age to bantam is create more seperation from the kids who want to hit and the kids who don't, or are too scared. I could get more in depth on why this idea is terrible but as a hockey player who's played organized hockey since I was 4 I've already noticed that it isn't hockey players who make decisions, it's the uppity city folk and yuppie soccer moms who run the show. I'm 22 and even though I don't have any kids of my own yet, I don't see a future for my kids the way hockey is becoming, not because its too violent, but because too many people are controlling the game who shouldn't be. This is probably just a big waste of typing but moving the hitting age back is a complete joke.

Avatar
#29 Harlie
May 08 2013, 08:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Another nail added to the No Hitting League coffin.

Avatar
#30 j
May 08 2013, 08:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

It is interesting how people are waxing poetic about their youth and how we have become so protective. Kids weren't allowed to hit in pee wee until 2003. Before that, kids had to wait until bantam. Wasn't hockey entertaining in the 80s? This decision is reverting us to previous practices which had served us pretty well I would say. Comparisons to other sports are invalid and impossible. Kids on skates = forces that can cause serious harm given the height/weight discrepancies. At least when they are older, most have developed foundational strength, coordination and some on-ice awareness. Let the kids play for fun. Some of the dads posting here are demonstrating where the real problem lies - parents' unfulfilled glory.

Avatar
#31 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 08:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

i think it is a sensible and overdue decision based on what we know now.

we've never have had such access to information on brains and sport injury (effect over time) so readily as we do today. it is not only important that we recognize it but it is our responsibility.

i never ever wore a helmet on my bike growing up. ever. my parents also never had the internet and stories from head related injuries and death throughout the world. had they, i would have had a helmet.

denying/ignoring information for the sake of percieved "wussification" is so so dumb.

Avatar
#32 justDOit
May 08 2013, 08:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Are Daniel and Henrik too old for Pee Wee?

Avatar
#33 book¡e
May 08 2013, 08:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

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.

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

That's a huge part of it. You're still thinking old school. Old timey hockey. But talk to a lot of parents with kids who aren't on hockey and ask them why. I'll bet that many will cite fear of injuries due to hitting their kid as the reason.

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?

Avatar
#35 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
#36 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
#37 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
#38 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
#39 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
#40 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
#41 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
#42 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
#43 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
#44 Archaeologuy
May 08 2013, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Cant we all just agree that Travis is ruining hockey?

Avatar
#45 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
#46 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
#47 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
#48 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
#49 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
#50 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.

Comments are closed for this article.