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
#151 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#152 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#153 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#154 Ducey
May 08 2013, 03:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#155 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 08 2013, 04:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#156 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 04:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#157 Ducey
May 08 2013, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Next up, is Connor McJesus. 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
#158 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#159 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 05:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

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
#160 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 05:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#161 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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
#162 TigerUnderGlass
May 08 2013, 05:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
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
#163 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 05:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@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

Avatar
#164 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 05:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

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.

That's completely right.

There are definitely helicopter parents out there supporting both these things... but that's not the reasoning behind either of them and they are both quite different things.

It is only when we place these debates into the cultural panic blender that we get these kind of side-shows... which I need to stop encouraging by arguing against...

Avatar
#165 @Oilanderp
May 08 2013, 07:55PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Hockey has hitting. Ringette does not.

I feel that the game as played in the NHL has eroded in quality. Eliminating the instigator went a long way toward this degradation. The result is a game where the outcome is largely determined by people who aren't even playing the game (officials, administrators, directors).

I am afraid that adjusting the game like this in peewee will further erode the game of hockey years from now.

I hope not, but I am afraid it will.

I'm sorry but I just wish those people who wish to change critical aspects of the game would just go play something else. Yeah, it's dangerous. Deal with it.

Don't ruin my game. I was here first. Go make your own! Call it ... mockey or something.

“Unbeing dead isn't being alive.” - e.e.cummings

Avatar
#166 @Oilanderp
May 08 2013, 07:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Go play mockey!

Avatar
#167 Reagan
May 08 2013, 08:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Best news! My starts Peewee next year!

Avatar
#168 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 08 2013, 08:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Ducey

You believe in your rubbish, but don't write off mine so quick. This is ALL about money. Hockey Alberta just wants kids to play into their mid teens, hang onto the so-called dream for a few more yrs....... so parents like yourself can "Show dem the Money! for another 3 or 4 yrs.

On the other hand, I do feel for people such as yourself. Kids whom these rules weren't in place for. Hockey Alberta wasn't there for you and the brain injury you obviously did suffer. Were you even an Albertan 10 yrs ago, or are you another one of those nomads that go where the jobs are.....Quebecian drywaller perhaps?

Be it known to all of mankind, that from this day forward, the term Quebecian is now the pride of Alex Trebeks geographical terms.

Avatar
#169 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 09 2013, 07:39AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Reagan

Don't fool yourself. It has as much to do Hockey Alberta keeping enrollment numbers up province wide, as it does about this secondary safety concern.

Avatar
#170 madjam
May 09 2013, 08:33AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Is money destroying the sport side of hockey ? Fodder , from chasing the big money grab that is available in sports nowadays ?

Avatar
#171 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 09 2013, 09:34AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Tikkanese wrote:

Why do you feel the need to belittle constantly and put words in people's mouth's that were not there in the first place? I'm sorry you're losing your argument and you feel the need for smoke screens.

I simply asked you about 5 seperate times to elaborate and for proof and only one out of three articles that you finally presented barely broaches the idea of removing scorekeeping and talks about a lot of other ideas. I like the other ideas. They would all improve sports, especially the coaching training overhaul. Why not just implement most or all of the other ideas without completely changing the entire point of sports by remvoing scorekeeping?

I could care less about the opinion pieces. I could care less if these places are producing some of the best soccer players in the world still, that is completely besides the point.

"As you seem to elide it, I'll state it again" That article even states very plainly that they don't know if removing scorekeeping is doing a disservice or not. Why do you continue to ignore this?. It takes no genius or studies to know that scorekeeping helps teach all of the good things we want for the kids. Just because something is just one part of many good ideas does not mean that it is also a good idea or a necessary step in order to achieve what you are trying to achieve.

If you don't want to subject kids to the idea of losing but want them in physical activities have them take up running, cheerleading or synchronized swimming for show. Those can teach teamwork. Stop it with the removing of scorekeeping. It is a completely unnecessary step and completely changes sport. It is not a minor tweak.

I'm sorry if I belittled you, but I don't think I did. Nor do I think I'm losing an argument.

You don't appear to address the rationale for the development model anywhere in your posts.

I offered a series of links offering everything from a summary of the postion, the arguments pro and con and the studies that suggest it is a viable option.

The quote you are so invested in is from a parent. It is not from the author of the article or from the CSA.

I think it is completely natural that people would react to the ideas of LTPD negatively. Quoting a skeptical parent simply offers the article the foil of the general public's confusion and anxiety about the new model.

It is hardly evidence the model is faulty, or untested.

I also have no idea why someone so committed to the idea that x will produce y ignores all the evidence that x doesn't in fact produce y in all the cases known to have tried x.

Again... your final paragraph reveals you miss the point of what LTPD is aiming for. If you are going to argue against something you have to apply the principle of charity, i.e., that the person advocating a position both genuinely holds that position and that the arguments they offer are the ones that matter.

No where in the LTPD literature is there the idea that people "don't want to subject kids to the idea of losing." This is a complete straw man.

The idea is to de-emphasize score keeping (note this doesn't mean de-emphasizing scoring) and emphasize a process of skill building.

If you disagree with this fine. It is totally valid to challenge that model. But to make a mockery of the actual position you disagree with isn't to argue against it.

Avatar
#172 Zamboni Driver
May 09 2013, 11:55AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Btw...to clarify.

Absolute heroes are the Dad's who volunteer to coach.

Avatar
#173 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 09 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Don't know about the rest of you guys, but when there's someone carted off on a stretcher at a game, I can't help but feel this is an added bonus. To see a guy getting wheeled off really enforces that "must really suck to be that guy right now" bonus element to the evenings entertainment.

Should hang a body bag below the scoreboard at Rexall with financial incentive to the player who provides the matter for said bag. Putting a guy through the glass into row 3 should be kept track of rather than shots on goal. Rollerball... Dog eat dog baby!

Comments are closed for this article.