Hockey Alberta eliminates body checking in Pee Wee

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

Yeah sounds like this decision was primarily made based on the available data - which is hard to dispute. From the sounds of it - there is no evidence that it pushes the problem to Bantam.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by valo403

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 a real issue.

I think you are missing the point I have been trying to make. Of course I understand that concussions are a serious injury. And when they happen we take the necessary precautions to make sure a kid isn't back playing until he is healthy. My contention is on the idea that taken contact out at the lower level will prevent them from happening because I don't think it will. You are just pushing it to an age group where they have the potential to be much more severe.

Look, I don't have kids and I understand a parents need to protect their child from harm, but for me that issue is pretty much cut and dry. If you don't want your child to be potentially hurt, don't put them in a sport that involves people running into each other. I want to prevent myself from being in car crashes, thus I don't race cars. If a kid is going to amke a fuss because their parents won't let them play a contact game that's the individual parents issue to deal with. Its not everyone else's problem when they put them in the sport and don't like the way the game is played.

Your point about taking on much more contact in your life than you would ever see in minor hockey i feel actually argues this point. People (kids in particular) are going to find a way to hurt themselves regardless. We don't need to put a pillow on everything. We used to play a game at this age called "Cream the Carrier" where the basic premise was that 1 kid had a ball, and the other 20+ kids were trying to tackle him. That was it. I'm sure of the older posters can attest to getting into activities at that age that were much more dangerous and potentially harmful than playing full-contact hockey.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah sounds like this decision was primarily made based on the available data - which is hard to dispute. From the sounds of it - there is no evidence that it pushes the problem to Bantam.

Thats because we wont see the effects of it for a few years. The available data says kids get hurt more when playing with contact that without it. Of course thats the case, that's just logic. The point that me (and others) are trying to make is that the contact is not a surprise to the kids or the parents. Its there and the only way to truly completely avoid serious injury (at anything, not just hockey) is to not do it. Every single parent and child has a choice of whether or not they want to play hockey. And within that also have the choice to play non-contact.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah sounds like this decision was primarily made based on the available data - which is hard to dispute. From the sounds of it - there is no evidence that it pushes the problem to Bantam.

My issue with basing this solely on these studies is that there seem to be some pretty big holes in them (I haven't had time to actually read the whole thing, just summaries so if I'm off base here I apologize). There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the type or cause of injuries, or the severity, which to me should be a major component. If the injury rate stays the same but the severity increases, or we're going from broken collarbones to concussions, then I'd say we're not only pushing the problem but exacerbating it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think you are missing the point I have been trying to make. Of course I understand that concussions are a serious injury. And when they happen we take the necessary precautions to make sure a kid isn't back playing until he is healthy. My contention is on the idea that taken contact out at the lower level will prevent them from happening because I don't think it will. You are just pushing it to an age group where they have the potential to be much more severe.

Look, I don't have kids and I understand a parents need to protect their child from harm, but for me that issue is pretty much cut and dry. If you don't want your child to be potentially hurt, don't put them in a sport that involves people running into each other. I want to prevent myself from being in car crashes, thus I don't race cars. If a kid is going to amke a fuss because their parents won't let them play a contact game that's the individual parents issue to deal with. Its not everyone else's problem when they put them in the sport and don't like the way the game is played.

Your point about taking on much more contact in your life than you would ever see in minor hockey i feel actually argues this point. People (kids in particular) are going to find a way to hurt themselves regardless. We don't need to put a pillow on everything. We used to play a game at this age called "Cream the Carrier" where the basic premise was that 1 kid had a ball, and the other 20+ kids were trying to tackle him. That was it. I'm sure of the older posters can attest to getting into activities at that age that were much more dangerous and potentially harmful than playing full-contact hockey.

Well then I don't understand your "then don't play contact sports" comment.

This is what that was in response to:

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.

My issue was with people talking about concussions like they aren't a big deal, and you respond with "then don't play contact sports"? Doesn't sound to me like you're someone who takes concussions seriously.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well then I don't understand your "then don't play contact sports" comment.

This is what that was in response to:



My issue was with people talking about concussions like they aren't a big deal, and you respond with "then don't play contact sports"? Doesn't sound to me like you're someone who takes concussions seriously.

Sorry I guess I missed your point a bit then. I thought you were more commenting on the presence of concussions vs the attitude towards them. I hate seeing my kids (players) hurt. And I really think we at the Bantam level are going to see a lot more injuries as a result of this. Where 200 lb kids are taking inexperienced, uncontrolled runs at kids who are barely 5 ft 100lbs. I think its a short sighted change to appease a few people making a big fuss about a sport they don't truely understand.

We see more injuries from being hit with pucks than concussions. Are they going to ban slap shots too?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Sorry I guess I missed your point a bit then. I thought you were more commenting on the presence of concussions vs the attitude towards them. I hate seeing my kids (players) hurt. And I really think we at the Bantam level are going to see a lot more injuries as a result of this. Where 200 lb kids are taking inexperienced, uncontrolled runs at kids who are barely 5 ft 100lbs. I think its a short sighted change to appease a few people making a big fuss about a sport they don't truely understand.

We see more injuries from being hit with pucks than concussions. Are they going to ban slap shots too?

Injuries from being hit with pucks are generally going to heal and not result in long term issues. You can't say that about concussions. Like I said above, if the studies show that this is actually going to prevent serious injuries then I find it pretty hard to argue against it, but I'm not certain they show that.

One thing I do agree with you on is that there should be a path that allows elite players to play with contact, the lack of skill of a certain segment should prevent those players who can play safely with contact from doing so. Is there anything preventing the summer hockey programs from getting involved year round? If not I could see those elite players moving into that path, which ultimately might be better from a hockey perspective for everyone. Now whether that's better from a raising children stand point is a different story.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by valo403

Injuries from being hit with pucks are generally going to heal and not result in long term issues. You can't say that about concussions. Like I said above, if the studies show that this is actually going to prevent serious injuries then I find it pretty hard to argue against it, but I'm not certain they show that.

One thing I do agree with you on is that there should be a path that allows elite players to play with contact, the lack of skill of a certain segment should prevent those players who can play safely with contact from doing so. Is there anything preventing the summer hockey programs from getting involved year round? If not I could see those elite players moving into that path, which ultimately might be better from a hockey perspective for everyone. Now whether that's better from a raising children stand point is a different story.

Yeah I would definitely have no problem with them only including contact at the top 2 levels or whatever.

Your point about the type of injury is valid. Obviously a concussion is a lot worse long term than a broken foot from a shot. But my point is that the sport IS contact. No matter if you have it introduced in Atom, PeeWee or Bantam. And there is really only one way to all out stop your child from getting a concussion as a result of hockey and that is to not play hockey. Even non-contact hockey I imagine has the odd concussion. Effing basketball has concussions. My point is that if parents are so nervous about it, they shouldnt allow their kids to play contact sports (or sports at all if theyre super concerned). And if their kids are going to cry about not being able to play with their friends, thats the parents problem, Not Hockey Alberta's or Hockey Canada's. And its especially not the problem of the kids that want to partake in it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Sorry I guess I missed your point a bit then. I thought you were more commenting on the presence of concussions vs the attitude towards them. I hate seeing my kids (players) hurt. And I really think we at the Bantam level are going to see a lot more injuries as a result of this. Where 200 lb kids are taking inexperienced, uncontrolled runs at kids who are barely 5 ft 100lbs. I think its a short sighted change to appease a few people making a big fuss about a sport they don't truely understand.

We see more injuries from being hit with pucks than concussions. Are they going to ban slap shots too?

That's ridiculous.

First. Injuries at Bantam DO NOT increase when checking is removed from peewee. That much has been made clear.

Second. If you can decrease injuries by changing something, you shouldn't do it because other things cause injuries too? That's what it seems like you're saying.

Many Neurologists are showing clearly that concussions at this age are much more serious than later on. We know that injuries in bantam do not increase of you eliminate hitting in peewee. The question then becomes: What benefit is gained by putting these kids at a threefold higher risk of injuries (higher increase when comparing serious injuries)?


Edit: I agree 100% with body checking being allowed at upper tier levels of peewee. Kids at that level are much better at staying on their feet and dealing with contact as well as their understanding of avoidance

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's ridiculous.

First. Injuries at Bantam DO NOT increase when checking is removed from peewee. That much has been made clear.

Second. If you can decrease injuries by changing something, you shouldn't do it because other things cause injuries too? That's what it seems like you're saying.

Many Neurologists are showing clearly that concussions at this age are much more serious than later on. We know that injuries in bantam do not increase of you eliminate hitting in peewee. The question then becomes: What benefit is gained by putting these kids at a threefold higher risk of injuries (higher increase when comparing serious injuries)?

By what? This has never been done before. What I'm saying is you're never going to eliminate injuries of any kind in a contact sport (as long as it remains contact) and that kids and parents are aware of these risks. And that if they don't want to participate in these risks they have the choice to not play.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is there anything preventing the summer hockey programs from getting involved year round? .

There is no real working relationship between Hockey Alberta and all these spring/summer teams.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

By what? This has never been done before. What I'm saying is you're never going to eliminate injuries of any kind in a contact sport (as long as it remains contact) and that kids and parents are aware of these risks. And that if they don't want to participate in these risks they have the choice to not play.

It's been done before. Quebec eliminated peewee body checking in 1985, and their peewee kids get 1/3 overall injuries and an even bigger difference in concussions and serious injuries. Yet, absolutely no difference is seen in bantam injuries.

So we shouldn't decrease the risk? Again, what benefit is gained? There are some pretty good players coming out of Quebec, so I don't know if that argument would hold up. People die all the time in motor vehicle accidents even with seat belts. We therefore shouldn't make seat belts mandatory. If people don't like the risk, don't get in a car. Argument is extremely shaky

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MattyC

By what? This has never been done before. What I'm saying is you're never going to eliminate injuries of any kind in a contact sport (as long as it remains contact) and that kids and parents are aware of these risks. And that if they don't want to participate in these risks they have the choice to not play.

Are you aware that there are scientific studies on this very subject? Are you also aware that these studies are based on comparing Quebec to the rest of Canada. Quebec banned hitting in PeeWee in 1995 and injuries in PeeWee have gone down and the change didn't cause injuries in Bantam to increase.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Sorry I guess I missed your point a bit then. I thought you were more commenting on the presence of concussions vs the attitude towards them. I hate seeing my kids (players) hurt. And I really think we at the Bantam level are going to see a lot more injuries as a result of this. Where 200 lb kids are taking inexperienced, uncontrolled runs at kids who are barely 5 ft 100lbs. I think its a short sighted change to appease a few people making a big fuss about a sport they don't truely understand.

We see more injuries from being hit with pucks than concussions. Are they going to ban slap shots too?

why can't that 200lb kid just play in an older age group at a lower level?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Are you aware that there are scientific studies on this very subject? Are you also aware that these studies are based on comparing Quebec to the rest of Canada. Quebec banned hitting in PeeWee in 1995 and injuries in PeeWee have gone down and the change didn't cause injuries in Bantam to increase.

...1985. Only reason I correct it is to say that there is now a whole generation of kids that went through it and yet there is lots of French Canadian nhlers

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There is no real working relationship between Hockey Alberta and all these spring/summer teams.

That's what I figured, so really these teams could very well just setup their own elite league with contact. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see that happen.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's what I figured, so really these teams could very well just setup their own elite league with contact. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see that happen.

Yeah they could, but I have heard that Hockey Alberta might be looking to reign in these teams in the next yr or two. Also, the liability would be increased.

I just don't see it happening.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

...1985. Only reason I correct it is to say that there is now a whole generation of kids that went through it and yet there is lots of French Canadian nhlers

People are just arguing against it with no merit whatsoever. It's basically societal machoism, I did it like this and I am fine, real men do it like this, you don't like it, too bad go somewhere else and let the real men play, my kid isn't going to be a girl. The fact that it reduces injuries in pee wee kids and has no effect on development later doesn't mean anything to these people.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

...1985. Only reason I correct it is to say that there is now a whole generation of kids that went through it and yet there is lots of French Canadian nhlers

Yes you are correct. And that is an excellent point. Not sure why people think that because there is hitting at a certain age that therefore it's the correct age for hitting. I am also very surprised to hear how many posters on here have kids who got concussions. That is very concerning.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah they could, but I have heard that Hockey Alberta might be looking to reign in these teams in the next yr or two. Also, the liability would be increased.

I just don't see it happening.

How would they reign them in? I've never been able to figure out how bodies like Hockey Alberta claim the right to legislate all forms of hockey in a province or country. Liability wouldn't be increased any more than it is with the summer leagues/tournaments that are contact.

[macker]

One less headache for me and likely many less heachaches for my kids. I am ok with this. It pushes out the potential for me to go climbing over the plexiglass when mini burrows or mini kessler plow one of my kids into the boards. It is hard to dispute all of the recent research and findings.