No Hit Hockey

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think they should only have hitting at the elite level, for kids that might be going on to Junior hockey.

I gave up hockey at 12 because I was small and was getting creamed.

Why risk concussions for kids that are just playing for fun?

How many gifted players do we lose, because they are small for their age?

I was a small, late December birthday. Basically a year younger than some of the kids and it showed. Got crushed a few times and decided I wasn't having fun anymore.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by fotze

The primary goal is to develop players that we can cheer for annually at the world juniors and every 4 years at the Olympics. The collateral damage is necessary if were are to be a nation of winners.

My son loves to play hockey. There's no mistaking him for a future NHLer.

When he was twelve they reinstituted hitting in peewee. He got three concussions in two months and missed the rest of the season and the following season. There were lots of other kids with concussions and one with a badly sprained neck. They promptly removed hitting the next season. He got hit accidentally into the net in the last game of the season last year and spent two weeks in his bed with the lights off and had trouble concentrating for a month. When they introduced hitting, every kid was trying to make an NHL14 style devastating hit. It's dangerous.

I ask people, what is this damage to these kids' brains teaching them again?

[Derek Sutton]

The problem will be the further crunch a rec division will put on ice time. Minor hockey systems rely on numbers declining as kids get older. It is kinda sad but it is true.

[habernac]

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.

My Mom stopped coming to my games when I hit about 14. I was one of the smaller ones out there and was a constant target. It made me a faster and more aware player, but I was extremely lucky to have completed Midget A hockey without a concussion. Better coaches, officiating and just a plain old respect for the other player would go a long way to solving that. I would definitely be in favour of having a no hit league.

[Northendzone]

I think that when hitting is introduced later, there is more of a novelty factor - if it was in play from the start, then the novelty has worn off when the kids are small and not as strong and quick.........that being said, a concussion in a kid is a scary thing.

Part of the reason rec hockey has less ice is due to the very limited number of practices....so this level of hockey appeals to those kids that like several other sports.....

[FlamesForever]

I don't post often but as a parent and coach in both Minor and RecHockey Calgary here is my perspective.

Rec from Bantam and older typically has 1 week with 2 games (Saturday and weekday and the second week with 1 game per week (Weekday). Minor Hockey week and Year end is similar to regular Minor Hockey. My son is a goalie in the Rec system (started in Minor) and he gets to play way more games than in the Minor system, typically 40+ games per season since there is only 1 goalie per team. Typically he has done played back to back games 3 to 4 times a season and last year as a Bantam played 3 Midget games. For a goalie that's not at the upper end of things or has aspirations of quadrant it's the place to be.

Rec also works because you know what days you are playing when you start the season, I wish Minor Hockey would do this, I do think it's possible but they would need to plan better. For instance most games could be moved to weekends and designate a night for practices for each age group. My son was moved to Rec primarily for School reasons, but also he's very active in Scouts and having a fixed schedule was beneficial to him. You do see all levels of players, I had 2 last year that could have played quadrant, one in Rec for concussion reasons, the other to pursue school sports and other activities. Some are truly barely able to skate. It usually makes the weaker players better. Giving players the option keeps them in the game longer. I have even heard of Players (A couple of goalies actually) going from Rec back to minor (at Bantam) and even going from Rec to Junior B. I'm sure there are players as well.

I also have a player in the Minor system, 2nd year PeeWee. He also plays Box and Field Lacrosse so contact is not an issue for him. He was pissed when they took body checking out of Minor Hockey. I like many others believe that Body checking should be introduced in Atom or even earlier. This way the kids learn to skate with their heads up from the beginning and if you had it when they are all more or less the same size there would likely be fewer injuries.

Football and Lacrosse have contact as part of the game, so it should be for hockey. Hockey needs to get to better helmet technology and maybe even reduce the body armour that the players wear. the Pros (NHL and Major Junior and leagues inbetween) also need to reduce the amount of dirty plays and hits. Improving the respect factor at a higher level would help translate to younger levels since there would be fewer dirty plays or players to emulate.

Don't think that contact or body checking is eliminated in Rec or No contact hockey. The dirtiest hit I have ever witnessed as a coach was last season in Rec when one of my players was run and body checked when he didn't expet it. To make a long story short he ended up missing a month of school and was in a dark bedroom, no electronics, no reading, no nothing for 2 weeks. He did return and play again but he also played high baseball and missed a month worth of training.

In a no-contact hockey league (Mid level NCHL) I was submarined and dislocated a shoulder in the process.

So bottom line is that I teach the players how to take a hit (I took the hitting course). Even in no contact hockey I think a checking course should be mandatory every year, before you play a game.

You can't, however, take all hitting and contact out. Just the nature of the sport.

[Gallick]

When I was maybe 13 or 14, or whatever the first year of contact was, I remember there was a kid on my team who really was not enjoying himself due to the hitting. He was not a great skater, but we were in a low division and he really wasn't out of place. You could just tell he was intimidated and not having fun.

My dad was one of the coaches for our team and went to the league to see if he could arrange to move the kid down a division (where there was no hitting) and had to fight tooth and nail to make it happen. They were totally fine with moving someone up but wanted to make every involved party jump through all kinds of hoops to basically trade a kid down a division.

The teams and parents basically arranged it without the consent of the league and just told them to deal with it, but the kid was thrilled and having fun again. It seemed really stupid to me that the league did not seem to care about the best interests of their players. None of us were going to make it as hockey players, so why shouldn't the kid be able to play in a non-contact league if that's what he wants? I hear these kinds of stories all the time! I'd be all in support of non-contact for kids, especially in the lower divisions.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by FlamesForever

Hockey needs to get to better helmet technology and maybe even reduce the body armour that the players wear.

There will soon be a 5 star rating system for hockey helmets similar to the 5 star rating for football helmets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/sp...cope.html?_r=1

As for the body armour? It seems to be needed nowdays due to the emphasis on blocking shots.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by 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.

this is my feelings about it. i was never a big kid(I'm only 5'7) and didn't play high level hockey. none of my peers stopped playing because of contact(not that I imagine they would admit it, if it were the case). that's said I do understand the desire for a non contact minor hockey league

personally when I play beer league now I wish desperately that contact was allowed so I could prevent people from doing ridiculous dekes/spinoramas/other hot dog stuff that could be stopped by just standing someone up or pinning them against the boards

[showtime]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

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 believe 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.......

It wasnt as bad I was expecting it to be. That said I think its partially cause of the older players being more respectful during the tryout process. As the 2nd years have let up on hitting some guys who cut through center and try to dangle.

To the people who keep saying Rec should have more ice time. Pretty easy solution to that is upping the price it cost to play. High level hockey gets more icetime because they pay for it pretty simple. So not sure how people can complain about that.

As for hitting debate, not sure where i stand. I think ill have better idea after this season the difference it makes. If it makes for less injuries then i suppose im all for it.

[Sample00]

Sadly, in my humble opinion, Hockey Alberta is all about the Elite Programs and they couldnt give a rats ass about grass roots hockey. 99% of the kids playing hockey are in the non-elite programs.
Some communities are not capable of running a contact and a non contact option simply because they dont have the population base to have both. But in those communities that do have the option to have both, they should definately offer it.
I think the communities/hockey programs/organizations/league need to start telling Hockey Alberta what they want to do instead of the other way around. Most kids will never play Elite hockey and they should be able to safely enjoy learning a life long skill.