No Hit Hockey

[showtime]

Calgary does have rec non contact hockey all the way through midget do they not?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by showtime

Calgary does have rec non contact hockey all the way through midget do they not?

I don't know what rec hockey is like in Calgary, but the rec hockey in Sylvan is 1 hr a week, no practice, just one game.

Originally Posted by dino7c

Agreed, everything seems geared towards producing top level players these days...what happened to playing for the enjoyment of the game?

not sure about Calgary but in small towns they have indoor "pond hockey" leagues. No hitting, no travel, no tryouts, no summer camps ect. Just come for a skate and have some fun. Hockey shouldn't have to take a kids entire life

I know for both my kids that would not be enough hockey.


I think there should be two parallel options. One a hit route and one a no-hit route.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by showtime

Calgary does have rec non contact hockey all the way through midget do they not?

yes they do, and if you love watching guys toe drag with thier head down, then it is great hockey........anywyas, i get that contact hockey is not for all kids - and there is nothing wrong with that.

after some thought, i am in the camp where hitting should be in place from atom on. all coaches should be required to take some type of minimum body checking course, and the head coach should be required to take an advance course. teams should be required to have a team meeting early in the season where a video is shown that demontrates proper/improper techniques. all hockey associations should have a body checking comittee where there would be 6 or so experts, who would comit to working with all teams at some interval to teach/reinforce proper techniques.

for those kids who are no used to hitting at all (born in 2001/2002 making the jump from community hockey to quadrant will be made a little more difficult

[troutman]

Proper technique does not help, when there are accidents or bullies.

[showtime]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

yes they do, and if you love watching guys toe drag with thier head down, then it is great hockey........anywyas, i get that contact hockey is not for all kids - and there is nothing wrong with that.

after some thought, i am in the camp where hitting should be in place from atom on. all coaches should be required to take some type of minimum body checking course, and the head coach should be required to take an advance course. teams should be required to have a team meeting early in the season where a video is shown that demontrates proper/improper techniques. all hockey associations should have a body checking comittee where there would be 6 or so experts, who would comit to working with all teams at some interval to teach/reinforce proper techniques.

for those kids who are no used to hitting at all (born in 2001/2002 making the jump from community hockey to quadrant will be made a little more difficult

I coach quadrant hockey, and will be attending bantam tryouts this week. Im thinking we will see if not hitting the year before will have a big affect on the 2001s vs the 2000s.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by troutman

Proper technique does not help, when there are accidents or bullies.

It has been about 15 years since I`ve played minor hockey. What sorts of monitoring systems does minor hockey have in terms of watching out for and kicking out players who are bullies or overly aggressive?

I remember in my time there was a pretty clear and definitive line in terms of good, hard physical play and just being an ####### and hurting people. My last few years were during the introduction of the stop signs on jerseys and the strong effort to reduce hits from behind. I vaguely remember there might have been some sort of three strike rule for hits from behind.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by showtime

Calgary does have rec non contact hockey all the way through midget do they not?

There is Junior rec as well.

[N-E-B]

Personally I think there should be hitting at all levels. Kids should be taught how to give and take a hit at a young age and when they're closer to the same size. I think there should be a mandatory hitting camp kids should have to go to before they start playing.

And there is a no-hit league option. It's called rec hockey. If you don't want your kids getting hurt, don't put them in a contact sport. It really annoys me when people put their kids in these sports (hockey, tackle football, etc.) and then complain. You know the risk when you sign up.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Personally I think there should be hitting at all levels. Kids should be taught how to give and take a hit at a young age and when they're closer to the same size. I think there should be a mandatory hitting camp kids should have to go to before they start playing.

And there is a no-hit league option. It's called rec hockey. If you don't want your kids getting hurt, don't put them in a contact sport. It really annoys me when people put their kids in these sports (hockey, tackle football, etc.) and then complain. You know the risk when you sign up.

But why can't we have to parallel versions. As I mentioned rec usually doesn't offer up much ice time for kids (at least that is the case in my town).

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Personally I think there should be hitting at all levels. Kids should be taught how to give and take a hit at a young age and when they're closer to the same size. I think there should be a mandatory hitting camp kids should have to go to before they start playing.

And there is a no-hit league option. It's called rec hockey. If you don't want your kids getting hurt, don't put them in a contact sport. It really annoys me when people put their kids in these sports (hockey, tackle football, etc.) and then complain. You know the risk when you sign up.

fair enough but 90% of kids are playing hit hockey when less than one percent of them will ever play hockey at the college/pro level where hitting is actually important. I think more options is what is needed the whole system is setup to produce high level hockey players and its turning people away trust me. Look at the population growth vs. hockey enrolment numbers

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by showtime

I coach quadrant hockey, and will be attending bantam tryouts this week. Im thinking we will see if not hitting the year before will have a big affect on the 2001s vs the 2000s.

Showtime, I am most interested in hearing your initial observations, please comeback and provide and update, or feel free to send me a PM. I am a somewhat curious bystander only because my son is a goalie and he is a second year pee-wee and I am somewhat convinced that his peer group of 2002's/2003's will be the first group to go thru minor hockey with no contact whatsoever (I beleive that the 2001's would ahve had one season of contact before the ban came into effect) - with the exception of the few that move on to quads. The hitting/no hitting rules will likely have a larger impact on next years tryouts as only the 2002's that play contact spring hockey will have exposure to contact.

trout, you are right about bullies/goons/idiots - you need to hope that the coaches will help those kids, but then of course there are coaches who are also idiots.......

[Tyler]

A few years ago I would have laughed and called you all wimps.

However, after recently coming back from my 13 year old cousin's pee wee game, I'm totally in favour of getting rid of hitting.

Kids were just killing each other out there. Was actually hard to watch, especially because this was division 4 or 5 and it was plainly obvious that none of them will ever go anywhere with hockey, it seemed like a huge waste.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tyler

A few years ago I would have laughed and called you all wimps.

However, after recently coming back from my 13 year old cousin's pee wee game, I'm totally in favour of getting rid of hitting.

Kids were just killing each other out there. Was actually hard to watch, especially because this was division 4 or 5 and it was plainly obvious that none of them will ever go anywhere with hockey, it seemed like a huge waste.

I would ask the question though, is that a symptom of improper coaching. There are too many people in the coaching ranks that live vicariously through the kids on the ice and they're not teaching proper hitting and safety techniques, and they're not teaching the reason for hitting.

I see a bunch of coaches out there that almost seem to be intent on developing the next agitator type of player like a Cooke or a Ruutu or whatever.

There are also way too many coaches that I've seen that don't teach their players to respect the game or their opponents, because somehow they remember their glory days as a take no prisoner smash everyone in the face type of player.

However I think at some point the parents and kids have to make a choice and decide whether recreational tracks or competitive track is the course they want to take. If your going to play competitive developmental hockey with a vision of taking a shot at advancing into juniors or college hockey then the hitting has to come with it.

If not then rec hockey is your track and you don't need the hitting.

Also once you play a year of rec level and you change your mind and want to go back to the competitive stream then there has to be some sort of hockey safety school.

Just my two cents.

But I don't see the harm in hitting if its taught properly with the right attitude.

[Wammer]

Maybe I can offer a different perspective on this whole debate. I have a brother who played since tyke, and this year, his 2nd in peewee (Division 1), the non hitting started and that didn't really change the fact there was hitting. Albeit slightly less, and kids were still getting hurt. That's why I'm kind of hesitant to say they should take it away at higher levels because it's just hurting them for the future when there really is hitting.

[Critter4223]

I was always the worst player on the ice and got leveled a lot in pee wee, but if I wouldn't of learnt how to take a hit while I was young and small, I would if gotten hurt a lot more in bantam and Midget.
I know some kids are scared of getting hit, but that's why there are other sports with the no contact.
If you asked most rec hockey players they would tell you that they wish they were in good enough shape or had the talent to still be able to play contact competitive hockey.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But why can't we have to parallel versions. As I mentioned rec usually doesn't offer up much ice time for kids (at least that is the case in my town).

That's a valid argument. Rec hockey in Calgary only plays once a week if I'm not mistaken, whereas community is 3-4 times a week and quadrant is pretty much every day. I would be in favour of giving the rec teams more ice times.

[indes]

As someone who went all the way through the system (div 1/2) I couldn't imagine doing it without contact. It was a huge factor in my passion and enjoyment of the game.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

for some reasons there seem to be lots of idiots in hockey, I play multiple rec-level sports and hockey is the only one that seems to have issues with d-bags trash talking, starting fights, ect.

Yeah it does seem bring out the worst in some guys that have to take a fun game to the extreme. Hell I've taken some big hits in ball hockey and getting hammered into the boards hurts a lot more when you aren't wearing equipment lol.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would ask the question though, is that a symptom of improper coaching. There are too many people in the coaching ranks that live vicariously through the kids on the ice and they're not teaching proper hitting and safety techniques, and they're not teaching the reason for hitting.

Some of it might be improper coaching but a lot of it is probably just kids being kids after getting Don Cherry's rock em sock em videos for Christmas every year in their stockings.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

And there is a no-hit league option. It's called rec hockey. If you don't want your kids getting hurt, don't put them in a contact sport. It really annoys me when people put their kids in these sports (hockey, tackle football, etc.) and then complain. You know the risk when you sign up.

That's like saying skiers should stick to the bunny hill if they aren't trying to be a competitive ski racer and accepting all the risks that come with that.

With the exception of kids in elite programs, everyone is in 'rec' hockey. There to learn a lifelong skill, be part of a team, win and lose, etc. not to be high performance athletes. it's goofy that the system for 100,000 kids there to have fun should be built to suit the top competitors, and the 10-12 who ever play more than beer league. (Not calling you goofy, just giving an alternate view)