Hockey Calgary looks to ban body checking

[93Hound]

I agree 100% on that statement. Taking out hitting for PeeWee is just a BAD idea.

[DoNotCompute]

I coached bantam Division 1 minor hockey this past season, and I am completely against this rule change.

The jump to AAA and AA is an obvious reason to be worried for player safety, but the simple jump from community Peewee to community Bantam is daunting. You experience a serious size discrepancy between first and second year bantams. Some of the kids come in around 5"2, and some of the second year players are approaching my height (about 6"3).

Some of the smaller guys get absolutely decimated by big hits from the larger players, but I believe that the experience gained from a more level playing field in Peewee allows them to better protect themselves, ie keeping your head up, playing closer to the boards in the danger areas of the ice, being aware when crossing over the neutral zone, etc.

This rule change may work... but in my opinion, the injury reduction seen in Peewee hockey will not outweigh the increase in first year bantam player's.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Sample00

Take it right out of the game. Leave it in for triple A and higher. Most kids will play hockey for the fun of it and most men's leagues don't have contact, so we're talking a 7 year period where the injuries aren't worth the risk.
Now I have a son that's a Midget level goalie and I have coached in most of his years. That's my two cents.

To me this is the best part of the proposed changes.

Going forward body checking will only be introduced for elite kids all the way through midget.

My kids are only in timbits and novice, but I love the idea that if they just want to keep playing for fun, they can. If they get serious thats ok too.

[DoNotCompute]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

To me this is the best part of the proposed changes.

Going forward body checking will only be introduced for elite kids all the way through midget.

My kids are only in timbits and novice, but I love the idea that if they just want to keep playing for fun, they can. If they get serious thats ok too.

I can certainly appreciate this, however this type of hockey already exists. Calgary has a rec hockey option that is still competitive, but allows kids to play in a safer non-contact environment. Many of my friends growing played until midget, and then left for Calgary Rec to avoid the contact.

There are only a certain number of elite team spots available. I don't believe we should prevent the kids that want to play contact hockey from playing it because they don't have the skill required to play on a AA or AAA team.

[Coach]

I think this is a poor move. I've coached Bantam (next level up from PeeWee for those that dont know) hockey for the past 3 years and I have to say; with the size difference of kids between the ages of 13 and 15 and the fact the the smaller ones will generally be those coming from PeeWee with no prior hitting experience, some of these kids are going to get killed. A lot of times these kids coming from PeeWee haven't seen much hitting in the first place and already barely know how to protect themselves. I agree that, if anything, it should be learned earlier.

A 12 year old and a 13 year old running into each other likely yields a very different result than a undersized 13 year old and an oversized 14 year old.

[metallicat]

Go back to have them hit from the get-go, age 6 or 7. Give them years to learn the respect and etiquette parts of hitting and by the time they are peewee and bantam aged when the size differences really come into play, they're ready for it.

[Street Pharmacist]

I have a unique perspective. My son was a second year peewee this year, which was the first year hitting was removed from KMHA after two years of having it. There is no hitting now in house hockey at all levels this year.

My son got concussed last year...twice. Both were hits from behind, both in the numbers. My son turned his back (his fault) and the kid hitting him was not looking to get the puck, but to make a big hit (his fault). I pulled him for the year the second time, and it took about 3 weeks for the headaches and nausea (vomited for about two full days after) to stop. I was not going to put him in this year, but then they removed hitting. One kid last year had a serious neck injury, and there were 23 documented concussions, with a total peewee membership of roughly 130 players.

Any decision that is made in the medical field or most others should be risk vs benefit. The risks here are very serious. In rec hockey, most parents put their kids in it to learn teamwork, discipline, competitive spirit, etc. House hockey is not a training ground for future NHLers for the most part,.so why are we risking our kids lives? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find a legitimate benefit to hitting. What important lesson is in there?

It is clearly a dangerous and limited view to support hitting in non competitive minor hockey.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by fotze

I have noticed the big dumb kids who just hit, right now they can just skate away from them, but it will be tough when the can start to skate. Not sure how I will feel about that.

Kids are getting hurt at peewee level and often not just skating away already. These are 65-120lbs kids doing real damage to each other

Edit: Great info:

http://tnchl.com/facts.asp

"A: Many have said that if children were taught how to take and give a check at an earlier age, there would be fewer injuries. However, Capital Health reports that there is evidence that training for body checking does not reduce injuries, illegal body checks, or penalties. There have been a number of studies that compare the experience in contact and non-contact leagues; these studies report that the incidence of injuries, especially head injuries, is much higher where body checking is allowed. A 2003 study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that body checking was associated with 86% of injuries sustained by players 9-15 years old. Players in contact leagues were four times as likely to be injured (among those 9–15 years old). "

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I have a unique perspective. My son was a second year peewee this year, which was the first year hitting was removed from KMHA after two years of having it. There is no hitting now in house hockey at all levels this year.

My son got concussed last year...twice. Both were hits from behind, both in the numbers. My son turned his back (his fault) and the kid hitting him was not looking to get the puck, but to make a big hit (his fault). I pulled him for the year the second time, and it took about 3 weeks for the headaches and nausea (vomited for about two full days after) to stop. I was not going to put him in this year, but then they removed hitting. One kid last year had a serious neck injury, and there were 23 documented concussions, with a total peewee membership of roughly 130 players.

Any decision that is made in the medical field or most others should be risk vs benefit. The risks here are very serious. In rec hockey, most parents put their kids in it to learn teamwork, discipline, competitive spirit, etc. House hockey is not a training ground for future NHLers for the most part,.so why are we risking our kids lives? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find a legitimate benefit to hitting. What important lesson is in there?

It is clearly a dangerous and limited view to support hitting in non competitive minor hockey.

That's the key right there.

When I played hockey hitting was introduced in Atom. We used to laugh at the BC teams when we'd go over there for an Atom tourney and couldn't hit (or vice versa when they'd come here). The highest I ever played was AA and the lowest was about a div 1 or 2 team in Calgary. In small towns they use AA, A1, A2, B1, B2 and so on, so it is hard to compare to city teams. Also most rural minor hockey associations don't have as many stupid rules (when I moved to Calgary I couldn't play AA because I was a 2nd year and they had bizarre low quotas on 2nd year players). Never had a concussion and honestly don't think any of my teammates ever did, but I would have been some kinda pissed if I couldn't hit until Bantam. That is complete BS IMO.

I would have no problem with everything below peewee div 1 or 2 being non-contact. It wouldn't work at all outside of Calgary though because they rank their teams differently.

BTW I see a lot of people talking about peewee AAA. I thought that didn't exist? My understanding is that AAA starts at Bantam.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think this is a poor move. I've coached Bantam (next level up from PeeWee for those that dont know) hockey for the past 3 years and I have to say; with the size difference of kids between the ages of 13 and 15 and the fact the the smaller ones will generally be those coming from PeeWee with no prior hitting experience, some of these kids are going to get killed. A lot of times these kids coming from PeeWee haven't seen much hitting in the first place and already barely know how to protect themselves. I agree that, if anything, it should be learned earlier.

A 12 year old and a 13 year old running into each other likely yields a very different result than a undersized 13 year old and an oversized 14 year old.

While your statement is true, starting hitting earlier DOES NOT decrease injuries later. It may make it worse in fact

[puffnstuff]

The House league hockey in Calgary is already non-contact, its the Rec Hockey that was referenced by one poster earlier.

This proposal would eliminate the hitting in all regular competitive Hockey Calgary PW divisions (I believe there was 12 divisions this past season, 1 being the highest level)

There is no HC sanctioned AA or AAA in the PW age group, in Calgary it starts in Bantam.

Don't know what effect this proposal would have on the Spring Hockey industry in Calgary either.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

I grew up in Cranbrook playing hockey. In my Midget year they banned fighting and hitting. It got soooo many penalties that year because I just couldn't adjust. If a kid has his head down, you want to smash him. It doesn't feel right not hitting them.

[pekka]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

The House league hockey in Calgary is already non-contact, its the Rec Hockey that was referenced by one poster earlier.

This proposal would eliminate the hitting in all regular competitive Hockey Calgary PW divisions (I believe there was 12 divisions this past season, 1 being the highest level)

There is no HC sanctioned AA or AAA in the PW age group, in Calgary it starts in Bantam.

Don't know what effect this proposal would have on the Spring Hockey industry in Calgary either.

Spring hockey has no affiliation with Hockey Calgary or Hockey Alberta. Typically for spring hockey they don't allow checking until kids are heading into peewee for their first year (So the Major Atom kids). Some spring tournaments allow rub outs at all ages below that, including the 7 year olds. Not sure for that age the difference between rubouts and body checking though.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

While your statement is true, starting hitting earlier DOES NOT decrease injuries later. It may make it worse in fact

I think it gives the kids an idea of how to protect themselves against being hit before they enter an age group where there can be substantial size differences.

[showtime]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Kids are getting hurt at peewee level and often not just skating away already. These are 65-120lbs kids doing real damage to each other

Edit: Great info:

http://tnchl.com/facts.asp

"A: Many have said that if children were taught how to take and give a check at an earlier age, there would be fewer injuries. However, Capital Health reports that there is evidence that training for body checking does not reduce injuries, illegal body checks, or penalties. There have been a number of studies that compare the experience in contact and non-contact leagues; these studies report that the incidence of injuries, especially head injuries, is much higher where body checking is allowed. A 2003 study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that body checking was associated with 86% of injuries sustained by players 9-15 years old. Players in contact leagues were four times as likely to be injured (among those 9–15 years old). "

Wait you mean the majority of the injuries in a contact sport come from the contact!! Thats one of the most ridiculous things ive ever heard.

Im guessing this is only a Hockey Calgary mandate and not Hockey Alberta. Whats the average age contact starts country wide?

I personally think this a terrible decsion the size difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old is massive. If that 13 year old doesnt know how to take a hit hes going to killed. Even if its just along the boards. I think it will cause a generation of kids who skate with their heads down and turn their backs because they never had to face contact.

If a parent is worried about injuries caused by contact, why wouldnt you just put them in rec where no contact is allowed?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by showtime

Wait you mean the majority of the injuries in a contact sport come from the contact!! Thats one of the most ridiculous things ive ever heard.

Im guessing this is only a Hockey Calgary mandate and not Hockey Alberta. Whats the average age contact starts country wide?

I personally think this a terrible decsion the size difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old is massive. If that 13 year old doesnt know how to take a hit hes going to killed. Even if its just along the boards. I think it will cause a generation of kids who skate with their heads down and turn their backs because they never had to face contact.

If a parent is worried about injuries caused by contact, why wouldnt you just put them in rec where no contact is allowed?

I don't know about Calgary's system, but my example here in Kamloops was rec hockey, and there was no alternative.

The evidence seems to put a damper on your "learn to take a hit early" theory. Again, staying hitting early DOES NOT reduce injuries from hits later on. All it does is start injuries earlier. Why do you think it's a good idea for kids in relatively non competitive hockey to learn how to body check at all? Other than macho bravado, what benefit is there? That one in hundreds if not thousands of kids who suddenly make it big from rec hockey? Is that worth all the damage that is done?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think it gives the kids an idea of how to protect themselves against being hit before they enter an age group where there can be substantial size differences.

Maybe it gives them an idea how to protect themselves, but they still get injured just as often. Not much protection really

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

The House league hockey in Calgary is already non-contact, its the Rec Hockey that was referenced by one poster earlier.

This proposal would eliminate the hitting in all regular competitive Hockey Calgary PW divisions (I believe there was 12 divisions this past season, 1 being the highest level)

There is no HC sanctioned AA or AAA in the PW age group, in Calgary it starts in Bantam.

Don't know what effect this proposal would have on the Spring Hockey industry in Calgary either.

Then I agree that there should be SOME hitting in peewee somewhere, as i do believe the parents should have that choice. This baloney though that it is safer to hit early is just that, baloney.

I was under the impression that rec hockey was the same as house, which it is here. Most kids should not be in a hitting league, but there should be an option imo

[J epworth]

I still think my idea of splitting up Peewee age groups is a good one, have an 11 year old division with no contact, then a 12 year old division with contact. You really can't be having kids go from no contact in Peewee to potentially club hockey the next year. It's a big jump in skill as is, if you are playing against players who've been hitting and are older than you, that's when the big injuries are going to happen.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

Do you have a link to this study? I did a quick google search and found a couple articles from a year ago about a study. The article said lowering the hitting age to 9 in 1998 increased the rate of concussions in all age groups from 6-17. This doess't make sense to me.

Link to the article
http://www.canada.com/news/Earlier+h...979/story.html

I think hitting should be introduced earlier and a better job done teaching the kids to skate with their heads up and be aware of the other players on the ice.

The full journal article is on the CMAJ website, methinks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle2067916/