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 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
#102 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

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
#103 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
#104 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
#105 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
#106 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
#107 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Romulus' Apotheosis

thank you

Avatar
#108 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
#109 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
#110 Truth
May 08 2013, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
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
#111 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
#112 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
#113 Fresh Mess
May 08 2013, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

...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
#114 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
#115 YFC Prez
May 08 2013, 12:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@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
#116 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
#117 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Derian Hatcher

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

Avatar
#118 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 08 2013, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

@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
#119 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
#120 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
#121 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
#122 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
May 08 2013, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

@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
#123 Truth
May 08 2013, 12:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Romulus' Apotheosis

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

What I want to see:

A: Contact in Peewee and forward

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

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

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

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

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

Avatar
#124 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
#125 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
#126 Cody anderson
May 08 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

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

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

Avatar
#127 Rocket
May 08 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

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
#128 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
#129 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
#130 Lego
May 08 2013, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

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

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

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

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

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

Avatar
#131 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
#132 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
#133 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
#134 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
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.

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

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

Avatar
#135 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
#136 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
#137 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
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)?

You haven't.

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

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

Avatar
#138 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
#139 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
#140 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
#141 Romulus' Apotheosis
May 08 2013, 01:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
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
#142 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
#143 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
#144 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
#145 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

Avatar
#146 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
#147 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
#148 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
#149 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
#150 Tikkanese
May 08 2013, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

@Romulus' Apotheosis

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed for this article.