Do we need smaller ice surfaces for kids?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

I think we're all forgetting the whole point of this.

Forget all of this "training for big ice surface"...I thought putting Kids into hockey was to let them half fun playing the game. We arent breeding all of our Kids to be in NHL

Great Post.


After my boy played his first 3 on 3 half ice, he told me he liked it. In goal he saw more shots, and on the ice he had the puck more and got involved in the play more.

There was not one negative response from the kids.

[burn_baby_burn]

In Red Deer the six year olds (Dynamite, Initiation) play half ice games three on three with a split squad. The team is suppossed to be split on ability, the theory being that the weaker kids get much more involved in the play that way. The kids rotate playing goal every shift. A big advantage to this, is the amount of ice time the kids get. They are on the ice every other shift so they get to play half of the game. I think it is a good idea, however there are a lot of parents who don't like it at all.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

In Red Deer the six year olds (Dynamite, Initiation) play half ice games three on three with a split squad. The team is suppossed to be split on ability, the theory being that the weaker kids get much more involved in the play that way. The kids rotate playing goal every shift. A big advantage to this, is the amount of ice time the kids get. They are on the ice every other shift so they get to play half of the game. I think it is a good idea, however there are a lot of parents who don't like it at all.

Yeah it is a hot topic in Sylvan as well.


As I posted earlier, I think it is a no brainer for Dynamite.

Novice, I think a split of cross ice 3 on 3 and full ice 5 on 5 games are a good idea.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah it is a hot topic in Sylvan as well.


As I posted earlier, I think it is a no brainer for Dynamite.

Novice, I think a split of cross ice 3 on 3 and full ice 5 on 5 games are a good idea.

There is a parent on my son's team who told me he was going to move to Sylvan to get away from the half ice three on three. I thought that was a little extreme.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

There is a parent on my son's team who told me he was going to move to Sylvan to get away from the half ice three on three. I thought that was a little extreme.

I can't see moving from Dead Rear as anything but a good idea....

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I can't see moving from Dead Rear as anything but a good idea....

Sylvan doesn't seem appealing to me. Winter might be ok, but the summer looks much too busy for me. To each their own I guess.

[Northendzone]

if you are a golaie and play 3-3 on a small ice surface, you need to have a thick skin, because you get lit up.

if you are playing east-west - then you also need to think about marking the ice for face off dots and what about offsides?

Other issue becomes number of dressing rooms - most rinks have 4 to 6 at the most - if you have two half ice games goign on then you need 4 rooms for that ice time - plus rooms for the next ice time.

Seems like shirking the ice is initially a good idea - but there is more to consider than just moving the ents.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

if you are a golaie and play 3-3 on a small ice surface, you need to have a thick skin, because you get lit up.

Not a bad point, but believe it or not he likes 3 on 3 just fine. While more goals are scored, there are also more saves being made. We get him to focus on his saves.

if you are playing east-west - then you also need to think about marking the ice for face off dots and what about offsides?

There is one face off in 3 on 3, that is at the start of the game. The rest of the time, the team pulls the puck out of the net and play starts again.

Offsides, there are none. That is why I think a mix of 3 on 3 and full ice 5 on 5, is a good idea.

Other issue becomes number of dressing rooms - most rinks have 4 to 6 at the most - if you have two half ice games goign on then you need 4 rooms for that ice time - plus rooms for the next ice time.

Seems like shirking the ice is initially a good idea - but there is more to consider than just moving the ents.

There is no increase in # of dressing rooms needed, at least in my experience. In Sylvan the novice teams have approx 17 players. When they play 3 on 3, they just split the two teams up. Lest standing on the bench waiting to go out and skate.

To be honest I have trouble seeing how the few negatives outweigh the many positives.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

When I was a kid, we played half ice in Medicine Hat for Novice. The rinks had some wooden sectional quarter (about 2 feet high) boards that they used to put across center ice. The leagues would schedule all the novice games in roughly the same time blocks so the temp boards wouldn't have to be taken in and out constantly. This way, they were also able to have 4 teams play per hour rather than 2.

When was this? I played full ice in novice, but mighty mites the nets were on the half boards. Also in Medicine Hat.

[theTrumanShow]

I have 3 kids in hockey, who I also coach, 1 in timbits (tyke), 1 in novice and 1 in atom. Older 2 in top divisions (no divisions in timbits).

Timbits is already played with 1/3 ice or 1/2 for practice and full ice isn't necessary for 1st year kids in timbits. 2nd year kids practice on 1/2 ice and 1/3 as well, but most games are full ice. Kids learn a tonne by having more ice to move on and pick up speed. You can't pick up speed at all playing on 1/3 ice, but on 1/2 ice they can. Either way 2nd year kids WANT full ice because it is more fun for them.

Novice/Atom kids generally have 1/2 ice practices and some full ice practices IF your lucky and have full ice games. Which is how it generally should be. Kids in novice WANT full ice and hate half ice practices because they know they pick up more speed with more free ice.

As a coach and hokey parent, shrinking the ice for kids IMO is a waste of time beyond 5-6 year olds and building anything to accomodate to that is just plain ridiculous. Most rinks already have divider mats that take less than a minute to throw on the ice, so building facilities with smaller rinks would just be a massive waste of tax dollars.....just my 2 cents.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

I think we're all forgetting the whole point of this.

Forget all of this "training for big ice surface"...I thought putting Kids into hockey was to let them half fun playing the game. We arent breeding all of our Kids to be in NHL

I'd imagine it would be more fun for the little kids on a smaller ice surface too?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Great idea. For timbits I think it should always be half ice or something similar.

By 2nd year timbits half the kids check out of games. They will never touch the puck because it's not tiered and the good kids always have it. Most of the kids are wasting their time and having no fun.

In novice where it is tiered these same kids suddenly find a whole new spark. They also start learning about offside etc., so I think full ice is ok then. By second year novice most kids can get around just fine.

[burn_baby_burn]

This has already been said, but a lot of people are missing what has been pointed out repeatedly. You don't need to build different sized rinks. The young kids now are playing half ice. There are rink dividers out there that mimik real hockey boards (with rounded corners and everything) they are just only 2 feet high and have a door and everything.

These kids are also very young, so you don't need to worry about faceoff dots, blue lines, off sides. It is basically pond hockey out there and it's supposed to be fun.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

This has already been said, but a lot of people are missing what has been pointed out repeatedly. You don't need to build different sized rinks. The young kids now are playing half ice. There are rink dividers out there that mimik real hockey boards (with rounded corners and everything) they are just only 2 feet high and have a door and everything.

These kids are also very young, so you don't need to worry about faceoff dots, blue lines, off sides. It is basically pond hockey out there and it's supposed to be fun.

Just wanted to draw some attention to that word.

[ma-skis.com]

My kid is in his first year of Novice without having played timbits at all. At the beginning of the year I would have agreed that 3v3 would have been better, but now having watched him develop all year, full ice is fine for him and the kids on his team. Even with off sides, icing and the such, most kids on his team understands the concepts and clear or wait at the blue line before crossing.

The only thing that I've really noticed with more space is that straight forward speed is more beneficial that maneuverability right now and don't see as many benefits of turning or transitional skating. Perhaps in a smaller area that would develop better.

End of the day, he's sweaty and he's happy, so it's a success for us. If mini half ice games would result in more kids on the ice at a time, then I would agree we should go that way for timbits and novice. But most practices are half ice anyways, so scrimmages end up going half ice for our squad, so they do see their fair share of it anyways.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by ma-skis.com

My kid is in his first year of Novice without having played timbits at all. At the beginning of the year I would have agreed that 3v3 would have been better, but now having watched him develop all year, full ice is fine for him and the kids on his team. Even with off sides, icing and the such, most kids on his team understands the concepts and clear or wait at the blue line before crossing.

The only thing that I've really noticed with more space is that straight forward speed is more beneficial that maneuverability right now and don't see as many benefits of turning or transitional skating. Perhaps in a smaller area that would develop better.

End of the day, he's sweaty and he's happy, so it's a success for us. If mini half ice games would result in more kids on the ice at a time, then I would agree we should go that way for timbits and novice. But most practices are half ice anyways, so scrimmages end up going half ice for our squad, so they do see their fair share of it anyways.

They have Timbits hockey in Sweden? I had no idea.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

They have Timbits hockey in Sweden? I had no idea.

Actually, I think it is meat ball hockey.

[Bmuzyka]

Originally Posted by Hatter

When was this? I played full ice in novice, but mighty mites the nets were on the half boards. Also in Medicine Hat.

Thanks for correcting me, it was Mighty Mites. I would have been 5 or 6, so a little more than 26-27 years ago

[EVERLAST]

In trying to reinvent any game we always forget its a game and its supposed to be fun....isnt it?
Or are we just being really serious here.

I have been involved In minor hockey for over 20 years and I never get usd to the people living through the kids on the ice.....getting crazy, profane and unsportsmanlike.

Its a game.

Good ideas on here though.

[neo45]

Sure, but I don't see it making too much of a difference. Most practices are aleady on half ice or less, and the games are all 10 kids swarming the puck at all times anyways