Hockey Alberta eliminates body checking in Pee Wee

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I think this is green text but my sarcasm meter has been known to be off at times

Just for interest's sake:

http://www.totalsportsmgmt.com/pro-hockey/

In 1985, a study was done in Ontario, Canada for all 10 year-old hockey players. At this time, there were 22,000 10 year-olds playing hockey in Ontario. Of these players only 110 made it to the OHL (Ontario Hockey League) and 22 more received scholarships to Division 1 schools.

This means that only 132 out of those 22,000 made it into the top feeder leagues for the NHL. Of those 132 players, only 7 played in the NHL. Those are astonishing numbers.

The best way I have heard is described is by a guy that had a cup of coffee in the NHL:

Getting to the WHL = winning the lottery
Getting to the AHL = winning the lottery
Getting to the NHL = winning the lottery
Staying in the NHL = winning the lottery

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by ma-skis.com

just curious, how are kids taught hitting now? who teaches them to do it properly in PeeWee? How is that governed?

I played hitting both years in Peewee. The cut off was between Divisions 4 & 5 I recall.

One of the drills we practiced was the gauntlet. Your team mates stood a couple feet off the boards facing you in a line and you tried to skate through them. Sometimes it was gnarly, but then a respect started build with your team, that you're not trying to kill each other, but learn to shoulder them and learn to fight through the check.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

So they're putting off hitting until bantam where the size difference is bigger and the players are faster? They need to focus on teaching players how to safely take and give a hit so there aren't kids skating with their head down 2 feet away from the boards.

Yes, that may be true but if hitting is allowed you also have coaches training how to hit and telling kids to hit. Hitting is a skill.

From my perspective, as parent and as someone who played minor hockey for many years in the pre-mask era the giving and receiving of hits can be learned when you get older. On the other hand puck skills and to a certain extent skating skills are better to learn when the players are very young.

That does not mean that a player does not need to learn how to protect himself from day one as there are other ways to deliver violence in hockey. Certainly, as Messier once said its similar to Boxing in the sense that "you need to protect yourself at all times".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I think this is green text but my sarcasm meter has been known to be off at times

Just for interest's sake:

http://www.totalsportsmgmt.com/pro-hockey/

In 1985, a study was done in Ontario, Canada for all 10 year-old hockey players. At this time, there were 22,000 10 year-olds playing hockey in Ontario. Of these players only 110 made it to the OHL (Ontario Hockey League) and 22 more received scholarships to Division 1 schools.

This means that only 132 out of those 22,000 made it into the top feeder leagues for the NHL. Of those 132 players, only 7 played in the NHL. Those are astonishing numbers.

At our mandatory first meeting as parents with the coaches, we were told something similar. IIRC, of the 100,000 kids in minor hockey in Calgary, ONE will play in the NHL.

[Buff]

I quit playing hockey the year before Pee Wee when I moved away from Calgary (because I didn't now anybody playing in Lethbridge... which is lame because I didn't know anybody playing in Calgary when I first started playing).

So I never learned to hit. I try hard to avoid people now because I'm one of the bigger guys out there and I'm afraid that I'll hurt somebody if we collide. Perhaps if I kept playing and I learned how to hit I wouldn't worry about hurting people? Who knows. All I know is that, based on the odds that automaton and troutman are sharing, I still would have made the NHL if I kept playing.

[Flamenspiel]

^^Thats interesting and I agree with the ban. That aside I wonder what the percentages would be of players that encounter others degrees of professional success in hockey. Such as coaching, management, a paid college degree leading to a career unrelated to hockey, playing in one of the European leagues, being a referee.

[Coach]

My view on it is that, while we want to protect everyone playing as much as possible, hitting is part of the game. Kids and their parents are aware of this and sign agreements saying so. As many mention in here, there are available leagues that play the sport non-contact. There are plenty of alternative sports that include little to no contact. If you want to play hockey, play hockey. There are inherent risks with any contact sport. And by doing this you are taking away a kids chance to learn because some other kid may not want to participate in the hitting. Well, then don't.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

hitting is part of the game.

Does it need to be? For pre-teen kids? Why? What point are we proving, at the expense of health?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by troutman

Does it need to be? For pre-teen kids? Why? What point are we proving, at the expense of health?

Is there hitting in football in this age group? Or is everything flag? I really don't know.

The short answer is in the rest of my post, there are alternatives that don't include contact. By taking it out at the developmental level you take it away from the kids that can benefit from it and want to do it. It's a skill, just like stick handling or skating.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm young enough to remember my days of playing hockey at this age and I was licking my lips to get to PeeWee so I could hit. Its one of the funnest parts of the game. Kids will find a way to hurt each other and themselves regardless of whether or not they play hockey.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mccree

I think this is the answer. Why does a kid that will likely never play at high level risk injury because a check. If you are only ever going to play rec hockey do you even need to learn to hit?

A concussion or a collarbone or a knee at that age isn't likely to screw you up for the rest of your life. If kids don't want to hit, there should be an option for them to play in. But lessons like fighting through adversity, overcoming physically challenging obstacles, discipline etc that all come with team sports, and especially contact sports like football, shouldn't be shoved aside because you're worried about some injuries.

Make people fully aware that this is a possibility. Develop coaches in a manner that ensures a higher percentage of players know the right way and the wrong way to play physically.

Taking hitting out of the game, even at peewee, is silly.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

^^Thats interesting and I agree with the ban. That aside I wonder what the percentages would be of players that encounter others degrees of professional success in hockey. Such as coaching, management, a paid college degree leading to a career unrelated to hockey, playing in one of the European leagues, being a referee.

It is not nearly as high as everyone thinks.

I heard the guy that wrote this book speak on CBC




It was very interesting

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is there hitting in football in this age group? Or is everything flag? I really don't know.

The short answer is in the rest of my post, there are alternatives that don't include contact. By taking it out at the developmental level you take it away from the kids that can benefit from it and want to do it. It's a skill, just like stick handling or skating.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm young enough to remember my days of playing hockey at this age and I was licking my lips to get to PeeWee so I could hit. Its one of the funnest parts of the game. Kids will find a way to hurt each other and themselves regardless of whether or not they play hockey.

They aren't removing it, they're delaying the implementation by two years.
You mention that you were licking your chops at it, and use that as a reason for why it should still be allowed. Realistically, this decision should not be left to the kids to decide. They aren't privy to the same analysis as those within Hockey Alberta.

Of the limited data that is available, that data shows it's best to have them start hitting in Bantam. This coming from someone who also played contact both years of PeeWee, and tentatively agrees with the ban. It was certainly fun to hit, but I understand why they would choose to delay the implementation.

That data in Alberta, was for the higher skilled players, (Div 1-4), yet the data again indicates that injuries are more prevalent.

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Data shows:
Non-Contact PeeWee players in Quebec have fewer injuries compared to Contact PeeWee players in the rest of the country. Those same players as well, have the same rate of injury in Bantam both between contact, & non.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're right. Scrambling brains of many kids is a small price to pay to somehow vaguely increase Calgary's NHL player production

How many kids have their brains 'scrambled' playing minor hockey? How many are debilitated? How many can't play with their kids in thirty years because of a concussion they suffered when they were 12?

I'm sure the number is more than zero, but I'm also sure it's substantially lower than the threshold required for us to really consider it a problem. It's a physical game. Nobody makes you play it. If you don't want to play in a contact league, there should be avenues available for that.

Most kids, however, seem to like playing contact hockey.

[troutman]

Ken Dryden spearheads public debate about concussions
Former NHLer and Liberal MP moderating panels across Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...ncussions.html

[Vedder]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but does anyone know at what age the major European hockey nations introduce hitting?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

They aren't removing it, they're delaying the implementation by two years.
You mention that you were licking your chops at it, and use that as a reason for why it should still be allowed. Realistically, this decision should not be left to the kids to decide. They aren't privy to the same analysis as those within Hockey Alberta.

Of the limited data that is available, that data shows it's best to have them start hitting in Bantam. This coming from someone who, also played contact both years of PeeWee, and agree with the ban. It was certainly fun to hit, but I understand why they would choose to delay the implementation.

That data in Alberta, was for the higher skilled players, (Div 1-4), yet the data again indicates that injuries are more prevalent.

I have been a coach at the bantam level for a number of years and I can honestly say that I would fear for the safety of some of the smaller kids a lot more knowing that they have no experience taking or throwing a body check. Mix that with the fact that you may also have a player who is 6'2 220 (yes I've seen it), who also has no experience taking or throwing a body check, you could end up with some devastating collisions.

And too my point, that big man-child will now even have a stronger yearning to be introduced to the physical part of the game. I've been around players this age for a long time, I've seen how they think and what they want the game to be, and the kids like the hits. So the kids throw the hits. And everyone cheers the hits. It's just the way it happens. So their going to to it to each other, now for the first time, at an age when there is much larger size discrepancies than any other age group.

That being said, I don't really look at this as a safety issue as much as a developmental issue. I have stated that I think the possibility of injury is something that is inherent in even playing non-physical sports and the participants must understand this. I feel this will deter a lot of very skilled, but small players, from doing something they are very good at because there is recklessness around them, rather than two previous years experience.

I would have no problem keeping hitting above a certain division and taking it out of the lower ones, but for the kids that want that part of the game it needs to be introduce at an age when they are least likely to seriously injure each other. Pee Wee players are mostly the same size and generally go at a much slower pace than players in Bantam. I would like to see it introduced into Atom, but obviously that's not happening.

[Azure]

Hitting is a skill that needs to be taught just like skating and stick handling needs to be taught.

I guess it is up for debate at what point you start teaching it.

From my experience, it is extremely important to 'teach' the idea of taking a hit. I would imagine if coaches focused on that part a lot more it would also help reduce injuries.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is there hitting in football in this age group? Or is everything flag? I really don't know.

The short answer is in the rest of my post, there are alternatives that don't include contact. By taking it out at the developmental level you take it away from the kids that can benefit from it and want to do it. It's a skill, just like stick handling or skating.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm young enough to remember my days of playing hockey at this age and I was licking my lips to get to PeeWee so I could hit. Its one of the funnest parts of the game. Kids will find a way to hurt each other and themselves regardless of whether or not they play hockey.

Do you currently play in a full contact hockey league? If not, why not?

[puffnstuff]

So, I'm going to put this out there, I have talked to a lot of people on both sides of this issue; I'm a volunteer with a minor hockey association, a past board of director member and a coach, and the I have a problem with the decision. When I asked more than one of the Doctors about their study, the question I asked was about how they qualify the injuries that they reported on. To be specific, how was it determined that an injury was a direct result of body contact? The short answer is...they don't know. It could be a body contact unrelated injury in their data.
I also asked what qualifies it as an injury? And how many teams did they follow through the year, at games, at practices etc. Another short answer...they extrapolate from the data they do have. I feel the data they do have isn't comprehensive enough yet to determine that there is more injuries to PW players strictly due to contact (as well, all they are really doing is moving 'the problem' to the Bantam age group)
I read the HA news release and all it had to actually address the problem was a short " ...we encourage PW coaches to teach proper body contact in practice situations."

[Zarley]

The pansification of hockey continues...