Hockey Edmonton bans hitting at lower level Bantam/Midget

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I'm just going to keep my mouth shut after this. We wonder why kids are muffins these days. This is why. We baby them. It's hockey for crying out loud. When they moved hitting from peewee to bantam that was OK but then kids didn't learn to take a check until they were big enough to absolutely crush each other. I don't know what's going these days. Maybe I'm just stubborn and naive but that is how I feel.

You might have a point if this were about bruises or broken bones, which heal and arguably become stronger; but this is primarily about brain injuries, which can have serious long term implications. A kid with a serious concussion can lose years of education and even much of what makes them who they are.

This isn't about pussification out soccer moms, it's about irreversible brain damage. That's a whole other ball game.

[fundmark19]

What if we just changed the protective gear from hard plastic to a more foam like substance. It seems that more head injuries happen today than in the past and the shift started happening when equipment went to body armour instead of simple shoulder pads and elbow pads. I am sure the product is out there and can be manufactured.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I respect the different views on this topic but want to add 2 things.

Kids move up in hockey based on age not ability. If you had a kid who loved racing go carts you wouldn't drop them in a stock car the day they turned 16 unless they were already exceptional. You'd wait until you knew their mental and physical skills were up to the task. Which might mean never. To me this is the same.

No checking is not no contact. It's for sure another level but kids who like to mix it up still find plenty of opportunity for battles. They are just battles that better suit their skills IMO

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The studies contradict your second sentence

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's actually quite a few. Not a single source I can find shows early body contact reduces injuries later on. In fact, every single one shows the opposite.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0712141935.htm

This is the study in the article. It was a retrospective study looking at minor league hockey players who sustained an injury and went to an emergency department.

Here is a prospective cohort study from 2010/11 saying that introducing hitting at an early age reduces injury rate later on.

A lot of issues with both studies, no doubt. Retrospective studies are a lower level evidence than prospective. The retrospective did not include all injuries, only ones that came to the emergency department in Edmonton. There are plenty of issues and biases with both, but overall the prospective is a stronger study despite less participants (still had strong n value).

At any rate, it's never going to be studied perfectly. Practically, if you're concerned about your kid getting injured, do not put them in a contact sport. There are more injuries in contact sports, it's pretty simple. Don't whine and complain when you're kid is getting injured so that now no one can play competitive contact hockey.

They need changes in some policies, no doubt, but this is a knee jerk reaction.

Institute some training for parents with regards to identifying injuries, knowing when vs when not to play while injured (risk of re-injury), and SIGNIFICANT concussion education. All of the kids I knew/know that had significant concussion issues were all grossly mismanaged.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

What if we just changed the protective gear from hard plastic to a more foam like substance. It seems that more head injuries happen today than in the past and the shift started happening when equipment went to body armour instead of simple shoulder pads and elbow pads. I am sure the product is out there and can be manufactured.

The harder equipment is certainly a problem. I remember seeing Don Cherry go on about this issue a number of times on Hockey Night in Canada. He would show new and old gear and how unforgiving new equipment was.

I still remember my first year of Peewee hockey when one of my buddies on the team got new shoulder pads. This was back in the day when equipment was transitioning into the bigger and firmer era. Pretty much all of us still had pretty thin pads but this kid got a new set of hard plastic shoulder pads that were more like football pads. When he put on the pads we all took turns whacking his shoulders with our sticks.

One of our favorite drills was doing the gauntlet. I think it was critical in our development of hitting and taking a hit.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I'm just going to keep my mouth shut after this. We wonder why kids are muffins these days. This is why. We baby them. It's hockey for crying out loud. When they moved hitting from peewee to bantam that was OK but then kids didn't learn to take a check until they were big enough to absolutely crush each other. I don't know what's going these days. Maybe I'm just stubborn and naive but that is how I feel.

Kids are soft these days cause they don't play enough contact sport? Not sure that's what people are talking about when they say kids these days are soft. Not to mention every generation feels the next one is "soft", uphill both ways, I remember when Coke cost a nickel and children were seen not heard and things of this nature.

[transplant99]

They may as well ban it as the move towards contact free hockey is well under way and eventually will find itself at the highest level at some point.

Maybe that's the right way to go too, I really don't know, but I know my interest in no-hit hockey is not really high.

When they started penalizing clean hip checks about 12 years ago, the move was well under way at the NHL level to make the game much softer and safer by doing so. This is merely the natural progression and it has to start at a young age cause kids will still emulate their heroes and the NHL game will be the last bastion of it soon.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's actually quite a few. Not a single source I can find shows early body contact reduces injuries later on. In fact, every single one shows the opposite.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0712141935.htm

I think we're arguing the same point here. Concussions are more devastating when they happen to younger athletes. Limiting body contact to younger athletes, through the years when they are still developing their cognitive abilities, is the best thing. Concussions to children are much more damaging than to those to young adults or those to adults.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

What if we just changed the protective gear from hard plastic to a more foam like substance. It seems that more head injuries happen today than in the past and the shift started happening when equipment went to body armour instead of simple shoulder pads and elbow pads. I am sure the product is out there and can be manufactured.

CSA approved helmets were never designed to prevent concussions from body checks. They protect impacts from pucks. The rotational movement of the head is what causes concussions. If anything the shoulder equipment should change so that it has neck rolls and collars, just as we see with football players.

Although CSA believes adminstrative controls are a better prevention (ie, things like what Edmonton is doing)

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

CSA approved helmets were never designed to prevent concussions from body checks. They protect impacts from pucks. The rotational movement of the head is what causes concussions. If anything the shoulder equipment should change so that it has neck rolls and collars, just as we see with football players.

Although CSA believes adminstrative controls are a better prevention (ie, things like what Edmonton is doing)

I should have mentioned I was talking about non helmet equipment. There has to be something correlated between the change of equipment and kids feeling invisible running around looking for hits at the old gear that would soften the blow but you would still feel it.

[Coach]

I'm fine with this. I wish they would also push it back and add hitting into high level PeeWee again.

[CaptainCrunch]

So what does this mean if an Edmonton team goes to a tournament against teams that still hit?

As much fun as it would be to see an Edmonton team getting run out of the rink, while the Calgary Coach chortles and tells his players to pick up the hitting with a sneer on his face. Wouldn't this remove Edmonton teams from participating in tournaments where hitting is allowed?

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So what does this mean if an Edmonton team goes to a tournament against teams that still hit?

As much fun as it would be to see an Edmonton team getting run out of the rink, while the Calgary Coach chortles and tells his players to pick up the hitting with a sneer on his face. Wouldn't this remove Edmonton teams from participating in tournaments where hitting is allowed?

Hockey Edmonton likely would not allow those teams to play in tournaments where hitting is allowed. IIRC that is how it worked last season in Calgary for Bantam so would assume Edmonton would go the same route.

A little OT, but the way it was done in Calgary last year also meant teams could not move between hitting and non hitting divisions after the initial seeding round. A minor point but it also meant some teams that normally should have moved into a more competitive division were not able to. It also took away the choice of which division (contact or no contact) some teams were placed in from the local MHA as Hockey Calgary has a matrix that says which divisions teams will begin the season in depending on how many teams the MHA has.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

My kid was born in the worst year in that his first year PeeWee - contact. Second year - non contact. First year Bantam - contact. And, since he's not elite, was in the cusp division of Bantam this year and was non-contact. He did get called up to contact which was "exciting". So, from my perspective, I'd wish they would finally make a decision on this at a national level and quit changing at a regional level. They also do need to create a protocol for those who do get called up from a non contact to a contact league. A quick reminder before the first shift can be improved upon.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm fine with this. I wish they would also push it back and add hitting into high level PeeWee again.

I flip flop on contact.

All too often it appears coaches are coaching/teaching players to obliterate the puck carrier. This isn't needed, they just need to separate the player from the puck.

There are a couple of physical sports that have early contact: rugby & lacrosse.

Both of those sports have progressive contact and builds on prior years. I wonder if the better approach for hockey might be to take that route.

I play contact sport, both my kids play contact sport so I am conflicted.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

This is the study in the article. It was a retrospective study looking at minor league hockey players who sustained an injury and went to an emergency department.

Here is a prospective cohort study from 2010/11 saying that introducing hitting at an early age reduces injury rate later on.

A lot of issues with both studies, no doubt. Retrospective studies are a lower level evidence than prospective. The retrospective did not include all injuries, only ones that came to the emergency department in Edmonton. There are plenty of issues and biases with both, but overall the prospective is a stronger study despite less participants (still had strong n value).

At any rate, it's never going to be studied perfectly. Practically, if you're concerned about your kid getting injured, do not put them in a contact sport. There are more injuries in contact sports, it's pretty simple. Don't whine and complain when you're kid is getting injured so that now no one can play competitive contact hockey.

They need changes in some policies, no doubt, but this is a knee jerk reaction.

Institute some training for parents with regards to identifying injuries, knowing when vs when not to play while injured (risk of re-injury), and SIGNIFICANT concussion education. All of the kids I knew/know that had significant concussion issues were all grossly mismanaged.

Couple of points. Generally speaking prospective studies are better than retrospective because if the risk of confirmation bias. Not in this case however. You quote the study yet nothing was clinically significant. The paper states the risk of injury lasting longer than 7 days but less than 10 was increased by 33% (which I'm not sure you could say was clinically significant), yet could not find an increase in shorter term injury, concussion or injury lasting ten days or longer. So basically, it couldn't find anything on short term, long term injuries or concussions, but this magical 7 day injuries are increased by 33%? I'm not sure that passes the logical test to me.


There are more studies than the one I quoted. The biggest telling factor to me is that areas where hitting is delayed have no increase in any injury when hitting is introduced compared to areas where it's introduced early. Basically, we're advocating putting developing brains at risk for what appears to be absolutely zero benefit.

[Zarley]

The pansification of hockey continues.

[PsYcNeT]

To make up for all of this wussification I'm going to beat my kids extra hard with a sack full of grapefruit every morning at 4:30 AM for 15 minutes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

To make up for all of this wussification I'm going to beat my kids extra hard with a sack full of grapefruit every morning at 4:30 AM for 15 minutes.

You know I used to like to use a sack of fresh Oranges, it not only left fewer bruises because they were smaller, but it would provide several cups of nice freshly squeezed orange juice every morning.

That's advice you can live by my friend.

[PsYcNeT]