Hockey Alberta eliminates body checking in Pee Wee

[showtime]

Originally Posted by GGG

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

I don't even know of a full contact mens league. But it would be silly to think there isn't a difference between playing once a week and 3-4 like you do in minor hockey.

As for contact, i don't see why they just didn't promote their house leagues more often. Calgary has a full non contact option from peewee to Junior. Let them choose. It may cut down on smaller minor injuries, but i'd be shocked if their wasn't a large jump on major injuries when people get into Bantam.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by showtime

I don't even know of a full contact mens league. But it would be silly to think there isn't a difference between playing once a week and 3-4 like you do in minor hockey.

As for contact, i don't see why they just didn't promote their house leagues more often. Calgary has a full non contact option from peewee to Junior. Let them choose. It may cut down on smaller minor injuries, but i'd be shocked if their wasn't a large jump on major injuries when people get into Bantam.

Someone said there is one. But the point is if you as an adult would choose to play in a non contact league how can their be any justification to have contact leagues for kids. It doesnt make sense. For 99.99% of kids hockey is purely recreational the same way it is for adults.

If you read the studies from the quebec leagues where checking is introduced in Bantam their is no statiscally significant difference between quebec bantam injuries and Alberta Bantam injuries. So the assertion that you just move the injuries is false. Quebecs rate of injuries in pee wee is lower so this decision will lead to fewer injuries in kids.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by showtime

I don't even know of a full contact mens league. But it would be silly to think there isn't a difference between playing once a week and 3-4 like you do in minor hockey.

As for contact, i don't see why they just didn't promote their house leagues more often. Calgary has a full non contact option from peewee to Junior. Let them choose. It may cut down on smaller minor injuries, but i'd be shocked if their wasn't a large jump on major injuries when people get into Bantam.

Prepare to be shocked

[showtime]

Originally Posted by GGG

Someone said there is one. But the point is if you as an adult would choose to play in a non contact league how can their be any justification to have contact leagues for kids. It doesnt make sense. For 99.99% of kids hockey is purely recreational the same way it is for adults.

If you read the studies from the quebec leagues where checking is introduced in Bantam their is no statiscally significant difference between quebec bantam injuries and Alberta Bantam injuries. So the assertion that you just move the injuries is false. Quebecs rate of injuries in pee wee is lower so this decision will lead to fewer injuries in kids.

There still is a level of contact in beer leagues, at the high level ones I've played its more no open ice hits.

If the kid is playing for purely recreation their are options for that kid to play non contact. Like i said an entire stream from Peewee to Junior exists in Calgary for non contact. Lots of kids love playing in contact leagues why make them wait. They wouldn't do that for football. If you don't want your kid to play contact don't let them, why should it affect every other kid.

Ive coached for 6 years high level bantam and had 3 players receive concussion two minor and one fairly bad one. Only one of them involved a hit and it was a minor concussion.

The study was openly mocked meeting with hockey canada reps. I know a researcher who was involved in the study and she even said it had major biases included. It will be sad when next year they claim its a success because injures in bantam stayed the same and peewee went down when in reality the results won't be known for another 4-5 years.

[Coach]

For the record, I would love to play n a full contact men's league.

[Nsd1]

Some comments from Theo Fleury:

Theo Fleury ‏@TheoFleury14 13h Being small and having had body checking in minor hockey I learned how 2give and take a body check. Hockey is a game of contact leave it in


Theo Fleury ‏@TheoFleury14 13h
Taking body checking out of minor hockey teaches kids that they don't need the one fundamental rule. Skating with your head up. =moreconcuss


Theo Fleury ‏@TheoFleury14 12h
When teaching 4,5,6 years olds stick handling you teach them to keep they're heads up while controlling the puck. Fundamental teaching


Theo Fleury ‏@TheoFleury14 12h
You can't teach systems in minor hockey until you teach fundamentals. Skating shooting passing and keeping your head up at all times

[ma-skis.com]

I agree with fleury about the systems and skill development. I think many coaches (in many sports) are too concerned with winning at young levels and implement systems rather than skills.

I have a concern regarding him using his own personal experiences as a reason to leave contact in, since he has had a successful hockey career(minus all the off ice stuff). That would be like someone winning the lottery and saying that was their retirement plan and it worked for them, so that's why it's a good system.

regardless, why can't we match kids up based on size/weight, rather than age up until age 14 or 15?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by showtime

There still is a level of contact in beer leagues, at the high level ones I've played its more no open ice hits.

If the kid is playing for purely recreation their are options for that kid to play non contact. Like i said an entire stream from Peewee to Junior exists in Calgary for non contact. Lots of kids love playing in contact leagues why make them wait. They wouldn't do that for football. If you don't want your kid to play contact don't let them, why should it affect every other kid.

Ive coached for 6 years high level bantam and had 3 players receive concussion two minor and one fairly bad one. Only one of them involved a hit and it was a minor concussion.

The study was openly mocked meeting with hockey canada reps. I know a researcher who was involved in the study and she even said it had major biases included. It will be sad when next year they claim its a success because injures in bantam stayed the same and peewee went down when in reality the results won't be known for another 4-5 years.

The problem with the current non contact leagues is the skill level is quite poor and that has to do with the peer pressure dynamics that only wussy kids play in the pansy league. This idea that not having kids hit eachother is the panzification of hockey is the attitude that needs to be changed. Watch parents at hockey games and there are parents who want there kids to hurt other kids.

If your argument is why make kids wait to play contact why isn't there a campaign to lower the age bodychecking is introduced? Why is pee wee the perfect age not higher not lower. I agree that with you that the results from this change need to be monitored for 5 or 6 years to see the real affects of the change. Following the studies is what should be done and right now biased or not that study is the best we have. If someone wants to take the same dataset and re-analyse it at comes to different conclusions I would be all for it and if that data showed that hitting in pee-wee reduced injuries in bantam then re-open the discussion but based on the available data we have right now it supports moving the hitting age up.

I suspect over the next 10 years football will be changing. As more and more concussion research is showing that small non-concussion causing hits have a negative cumulative affect you will see a move to limit these types of hits in youth football. Football also will never be the leader as it is even more driven by male ego culture and the dream of playing pro than hockey is.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So is the issue that large kids are laying out smaller kids?

No, some kids are just really good hitters..... They don't tend to be the really tall kids.

There are so many concussions in minor hockey they have to look at it.....

My kid has had two concussions so far...... which is fairly common.

However this is a poor decision.... Now a 1st year Bantam kid who has never played contact hockey.... Will be in a really tough situation....... (i.e. as Per Theo's Blog... head down situation and the kids are allot heavier at Bantam).

A couple of years ago Hockey Calgary tried to implement this rule and put it to a vote with Hockey parents... and it was defeated.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem with the current non contact leagues is the skill level is quite poor and that has to do with the peer pressure dynamics that only wussy kids play in the pansy league. This idea that not having kids hit eachother is the panzification of hockey is the attitude that needs to be changed. Watch parents at hockey games and there are parents who want there kids to hurt other kids.

If your argument is why make kids wait to play contact why isn't there a campaign to lower the age bodychecking is introduced? Why is pee wee the perfect age not higher not lower. I agree that with you that the results from this change need to be monitored for 5 or 6 years to see the real affects of the change. Following the studies is what should be done and right now biased or not that study is the best we have. If someone wants to take the same dataset and re-analyse it at comes to different conclusions I would be all for it and if that data showed that hitting in pee-wee reduced injuries in bantam then re-open the discussion but based on the available data we have right now it supports moving the hitting age up.

I suspect over the next 10 years football will be changing. As more and more concussion research is showing that small non-concussion causing hits have a negative cumulative affect you will see a move to limit these types of hits in youth football. Football also will never be the leader as it is even more driven by male ego culture and the dream of playing pro than hockey is.

I think if you ask most people involved in the actual playing of the sport you would have a large group who wants this. At least thats my experience.

And to your point about the standard of skill in the non-contact leagues and the wussy stigma it has, thats the choice they are left with. No one is making the kids participate (hopefully) and no one is forcing parents to put their kids in contact sports. There are alternatives for people who want to play without contact, if they want to complain about the level of play well, I don't really know what to say. Things can't be catered to fit every single persons needs and wants. You want to play competitve hockey? You're going to be hit. If you don't want to be hit, then don't play competitive hockey. But then you can't complain that the non-contact isn't competitive enough for you. We can't put a pillow on everything to make it safe, the risk is part of the fun.

Lets look at something like snowboarding, where people of all skill levels play on the same surface (the hill). Is it dangerous? Absolutely, but a lot of that depends on how hard you want to go at it. Now imagine if you have ski hills start implementing rules where you can't go off jumps, or you can't go through the trees, or the hills can only be so steep. Does it not seem ridiculous to take those things out because a few people bit off more than they could chew and got hurt, and are now complaining about it?

I've said before, the risks are very clearly laid out for all those who participate in contact hockey. If it doesn't appeal to you there are plenty of other, less physically demanding sports. I have nagging injuries from when I played minor hockey. I have consistent back pain and a permanently messed wrist from different injuries. Do I blame hockey or the people that hit me in those situations? No. Its what happens when you play a contact sport (or really any sport) at a competitive level. I'd never take it back.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem with the current non contact leagues is the skill level is quite poor and that has to do with the peer pressure dynamics that only wussy kids play in the pansy league. This idea that not having kids hit eachother is the panzification of hockey is the attitude that needs to be changed. Watch parents at hockey games and there are parents who want there kids to hurt other kids.

If your argument is why make kids wait to play contact why isn't there a campaign to lower the age bodychecking is introduced? Why is pee wee the perfect age not higher not lower. I agree that with you that the results from this change need to be monitored for 5 or 6 years to see the real affects of the change. Following the studies is what should be done and right now biased or not that study is the best we have. If someone wants to take the same dataset and re-analyse it at comes to different conclusions I would be all for it and if that data showed that hitting in pee-wee reduced injuries in bantam then re-open the discussion but based on the available data we have right now it supports moving the hitting age up.

I suspect over the next 10 years football will be changing. As more and more concussion research is showing that small non-concussion causing hits have a negative cumulative affect you will see a move to limit these types of hits in youth football. Football also will never be the leader as it is even more driven by male ego culture and the dream of playing pro than hockey is.

In Canada? Sorry, but no.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by showtime

There still is a level of contact in beer leagues, at the high level ones I've played its more no open ice hits.

If the kid is playing for purely recreation their are options for that kid to play non contact. Like i said an entire stream from Peewee to Junior exists in Calgary for non contact. Lots of kids love playing in contact leagues why make them wait. They wouldn't do that for football. If you don't want your kid to play contact don't let them, why should it affect every other kid.

Ive coached for 6 years high level bantam and had 3 players receive concussion two minor and one fairly bad one. Only one of them involved a hit and it was a minor concussion.

The study was openly mocked meeting with hockey canada reps. I know a researcher who was involved in the study and she even said it had major biases included. It will be sad when next year they claim its a success because injures in bantam stayed the same and peewee went down when in reality the results won't be known for another 4-5 years.

Can we stop pretending that concussions aren't a big deal? This seems to be prevalent in this thread, 'oh it's just a little concussion, that developing brain will just bounce right back'. That attitude is ridiculous.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think if you ask most people involved in the actual playing of the sport you would have a large group who wants this. At least thats my experience.

.

No, when the decision was done by a vote for Hockey Calgary parents it was defeated... meaning, hitting to stay at Pee Wee level.

This was Hockey Alberta decision.

It does not remove the issue only pushes it to the Bantam age.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by GGG

If your argument is why make kids wait to play contact why isn't there a campaign to lower the age bodychecking is introduced? Why is pee wee the perfect age not higher not lower. I agree that with you that the results from this change need to be monitored for 5 or 6 years to see the real affects of the change. Following the studies is what should be done and right now biased or not that study is the best we have. If someone wants to take the same dataset and re-analyse it at comes to different conclusions I would be all for it and if that data showed that hitting in pee-wee reduced injuries in bantam then re-open the discussion but based on the available data we have right now it supports moving the hitting age up.

I suspect over the next 10 years football will be changing. As more and more concussion research is showing that small non-concussion causing hits have a negative cumulative affect you will see a move to limit these types of hits in youth football. Football also will never be the leader as it is even more driven by male ego culture and the dream of playing pro than hockey is.

If there was a study why is it only happening in Alberta? Vast amount of injuries that I have seen is at the Bantam or Midget age...

I have seen way more .... head injuries in Soccer (kids in competitive games) than Minor Hockey... how do you fix that?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by valo403

Can we stop pretending that concussions aren't a big deal? This seems to be prevalent in this thread, 'oh it's just a little concussion, that developing brain will just bounce right back'. That attitude is ridiculous.

Then don't play contact sports.

Originally Posted by flambers

No, when the decision was done by a vote for Hockey Calgary parents it was defeated... meaning, hitting to stay at Pee Wee level.

This was Hockey Alberta decision.

It does not remove the issue only pushes it to the Bantam age.

I mean people actually involved in the sport (ie, players and coaches) not Hockey Alberta board members and parents that don't like watching Johnny get hit into the boards (which is what these boards are generally made up of). Besides I think you and I are arguing the same point here.

[The Ditch]

Thank god we have coaches and former board members to come in here and tell us how stupid this study is, and kids like hitting! I know I trust children to make long term decisions! Also, Concussions happen in other plays too, therefore this study is invalid somehow! If they have to wait two years to learn to hit, they somehow won't be able to learn it as well!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Thank god we have coaches and former board members to come in here and tell us how stupid this study is, and kids like hitting! I know I trust children to make long term decisions! Also, Concussions happen in other plays too, therefore this study is invalid somehow! If they have to wait two years to learn to hit, they somehow won't be able to learn it as well!

Its not that, its that now you're forcing them to learn in an environment where the size discrepancy is much larger amongst the age group and the competitiveness of the higher levels is much more furvourous. The argument is that the peopel who made this decision arent thinking long term. You're preventing things like broken arms and seperated shoulders at the Pee Wee level (stuff that kids will find a way to do regardless), and introducing the potential for much more devastating, long term injuries at higher levels. Its an opinion of course, but it is an informed one from someone who see the psyche of the kids and even after two years of learning the physical side of the game how out-of-control some of them can be.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Then don't play contact sports.

Gimme a f'in break. I can pretty much guarantee you I've gone through way more contact in my life than you can dream of, which is why the trivialization of concussions pisses me off. They are a real thing, they are not minor little injuries that should be looked at like a scraped knee. The attitude you demonstrate and the fact that you work with kids in contact sports is scary.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Its not that, its that now you're forcing them to learn in an environment where the size discrepancy is much larger amongst the age group and the competitiveness of the higher levels is much more furvourous. The argument is that the peopel who made this decision arent thinking long term. You're preventing things like broken arms and seperated shoulders at the Pee Wee level (stuff that kids will find a way to do regardless), and introducing the potential for much more devastating, long term injuries at higher levels. Its an opinion of course, but it is an informed one from someone who see the psyche of the kids and even after two years of learning the physical side of the game how out-of-control some of them can be.

Trouble is that the evidence says that kids who start hitting in peewee don't "learn" how to hit anyways. The injuries are the same in bantam whether or not there's hitting in peewee

[undercoverbrother]

I have a question, has it been determined/discussed when the best time to teach hitting is?