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 tileguy
May 08 2013, 09:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#102 tileguy
May 08 2013, 09:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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

Avatar
#103 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 09:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#104 Ducey
May 08 2013, 09:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#105 MarcusBillius
May 08 2013, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#106 MarcusBillius
May 08 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#107 madjam
May 08 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#108 Chaz
May 08 2013, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#109 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 09:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#110 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#111 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#112 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#113 Tyler
May 08 2013, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#114 Benson
May 08 2013, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@K_Mart

Spot-on brother.

Avatar
#115 madjam
May 08 2013, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#116 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 10:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#117 jamelan4
May 08 2013, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#118 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

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

Avatar
#119 Steve
May 08 2013, 11:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#120 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#121 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#122 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#123 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#124 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#125 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Romulus' Apotheosis

thank you

Avatar
#126 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#127 A-Mc
May 08 2013, 11:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#128 Swede
May 08 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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

Avatar
#129 Derian Hatcher
May 08 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#130 Swede
May 08 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#131 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#132 A-Mc
May 08 2013, 12:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#133 Greg
May 08 2013, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#134 mayorblaine
May 08 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#135 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#136 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Truth

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

Avatar
#137 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#138 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#139 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#140 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#141 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#142 Truth
May 08 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ 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
#143 Ducey
May 08 2013, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#144 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#145 Ducey
May 08 2013, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#146 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 08 2013, 01:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#147 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 01:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#148 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#149 Truth
May 08 2013, 02:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#150 Eddie Shore
May 08 2013, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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

Comments are closed for this article.