Hockey Calgary looks to ban body checking

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Angelamc

Quadrant hockey (AA & AAA) doesn't start in Peewee, it starts in Bantam (In Calgary)
the game of hockey involves checking, should we request that NHL level players stop checking? How do you start eliminating parts of the game at whatever level? Whether they are headed to the Chel or going to rock a beer league in future, trying to decide what age these kids start to learn how to ‘grind’ it out is the question here, I think anyhow, and it should be younger not older as they can do far less damage figuring it out at a 100 pounds soaking wet than they can when there is a great difference size wise and get to heavier weights where more damage can happen (which is the case with Bantam aged boys currently).

The evidence so far doesn't back up your theory

[Angelamc]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The evidence so far doesn't back up your theory

I get that, and next time you see a kid taken off the ice on a stretcher with a broken neck because he turned his back at the last second along the boards to a check coming in, you will know that more experience taking a check in that situation would have prevented that!!! The game of hockey involves checking/hitting if you or your kids are not interested you can go play rec hockey or not play hockey at all and if you thought that signing your kid up for hockey would not involve risk, then you are, im holding my tongue here, sorry.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Angelamc

I get that, and next time you see a kid taken off the ice on a stretcher with a broken neck because he turned his back at the last second along the boards to a check coming in, you will know that more experience taking a check in that situation would have prevented that!!! The game of hockey involves checking/hitting if you or your kids are not interested you can go play rec hockey or not play hockey at all and if you thought that signing your kid up for hockey would not involve risk, then you are, im holding my tongue here, sorry.

Sorry, the next time I see that I'll wonder again what it's for.

There's good evidence to support the fact that adding hitting before Bantam significantly increases injuries to the younger kids and does absolutely nothing to prevent serious injury to Bantam players.

I ask you this in light of that fact: When you see the next 11 year old suffering a spinal injury, will you think that's the price for preventing that in Bantam? Especially considering that theory seems to be completely false?

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position...ing-ice-hockey

[Angelamc]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Sorry, the next time I see that I'll wonder again what it's for.

There's good evidence to support the fact that adding hitting before Bantam significantly increases injuries to the younger kids and does absolutely nothing to prevent serious injury to Bantam players.

I ask you this in light of that fact: When you see the next 11 year old suffering a spinal injury, will you think that's the price for preventing that in Bantam? Especially considering that theory seems to be completely false?

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position...ing-ice-hockey

My apologies, I’m not actually interested in a debate. I don't have fancy links to articles and the clever stats, all I have are my own two eyes and the thousands of hours I have spent at the rink over the years.
What my two eyes have seen, at the rink, are not accurately depicted in the articles and links. Younger is better, I stand by it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Angelamc

My apologies, I’m not actually interested in a debate. I don't have fancy links to articles and the clever stats, all I have are my own two eyes and the thousands of hours I have spent at the rink over the years.
What my two eyes have seen, at the rink, are not accurately depicted in the articles and links. Younger is better, I stand by it.

I can see that. I too have spent an awful lot of time at the rink. With my two eyes I saw my son in peewee lay on the ice after taking a awkward dirty hit and then spend the next two weeks in bed. Four years later and we're all dealing with the effects of that.

Small kids get just as hurt as the big ones. The difference is the small kids bodies aren't developed enough to mitigate any damage and it may in fact be worse

[Northendzone]

My son is a 2002 (the first group that is going to face hitting for the first time in bantam), and while I understand what this ban is trying to do, the reality is that at bantam there are kids who are 6 feet tall and one that are four feet tall......to me having hitting in atom is what should happen.

My idea was that each association could form a group of coaches who would go around to practices teaching proper hating techniques, and more importantly how to spin away and keep yourself out of dangerous positions

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I'm pretty sure the 'when to learn hitting' part of the debate is ultimately going to be moot.

The kids heading into peewee now who are not hitting probably never will. In a year or two midget will also change etc.

Good on the hockey governing bodies for getting their priorities right. It'll never be perfect, but solving for the top 10% of kids who are all athletic, skilled, and committed is a hell of a lot easier and better for participation in the sport as a whole. All IMO of course.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Angelamc

I get that, and next time you see a kid taken off the ice on a stretcher with a broken neck because he turned his back at the last second along the boards to a check coming in, you will know that more experience taking a check in that situation would have prevented that!!! The game of hockey involves checking/hitting if you or your kids are not interested you can go play rec hockey or not play hockey at all and if you thought that signing your kid up for hockey would not involve risk, then you are, im holding my tongue here, sorry.

Do you currently play in a full contact adult league?

[Frequitude]

I've never played an organized game of hockey in my life.

I think this is a great idea.

Intuitively, my gut tells me that the idea of kids needing to learn to take a hit is BS. If they can learn at 11, they can learn at 13 (or whatever the age steps are...I don't know). As for learning to skate with their heads up, coaches should find another way of teaching that as oppose to it being ingrained through the fear of taking a hit. As for getting crushed by big kids at 13, again, that's going to happen anyways. If you want to avoid that, surely there should be some sort of penalty for over the top contact (even if it's legal by NHL standards.

So ya, if it were me I'd ban hitting at PeeWee and penalize excessive contact at Bantam. I don't think this would create an entire generation of pansy Canadian hockey players. They can learn the tougher side of the game later in life. I believe it would keep more early teens in hockey for longer.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Angelamc

Quadrant hockey (AA & AAA) doesn't start in Peewee, it starts in Bantam (In Calgary)
the game of hockey involves checking, should we request that NHL level players stop checking? How do you start eliminating parts of the game at whatever level? Whether they are headed to the Chel or going to rock a beer league in future, trying to decide what age these kids start to learn how to ‘grind’ it out is the question here, I think anyhow, and it should be younger not older as they can do far less damage figuring it out at a 100 pounds soaking wet than they can when there is a great difference size wise and get to heavier weights where more damage can happen (which is the case with Bantam aged boys currently).

I know quadrant hockey doesn't start until bantam, my sentence wasn't clear, what I meant is, I'd be all for quadrant hockey starting in pee wee (i.e. lowering it) and allowing those kids to hit.