Hockey Alberta eliminates body checking in Pee Wee

[GGG]

Here is a link to the Canadian Pediatric associations recomendations for bodychecking in minor hockey. It discusses alot of the current research and lists all the studies.

http://www.hockeyalberta.ca/index.ph...52/la_id/1.htm

There key recomendations are:

Get rid of contact outside of elite players
Raise checking age introduction to Bantom.

They reference a lot of the studies if you want to read any deeper.

[troutman]

Age Categories

Timbits - Age 5 & 6
Novice - Age 7 & 8
Atom - Age 9 & 10
Pee Wee - Age 11& 12
Bantam - Age 13 & 14
Midget - Age 15, 16 & 17
Junior - Age 18, 19 & 20

https://www.hockeycalgary.ca/registration/information

I find this helpful. I can never remember what age each category is.

[Bill Bumface]

I haven't read through all the links, but is there research showing the healing ability of brains at different ages, and the permanent damage caused to the brain at different ages? If a 16 year old brain can recover from a concussion better than a 12 year old brain, then leave the contact for the older kids.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

Thanks for the insight, I wasn't aware of Quebec's situation. I would be interested to see the difference in long term dibilhitations as a result of hockey injuries in middle-aged people that went through full contact PeeWee vs those who went through Quebec's system. Because that's what we're really talking about here isn't it? How will these injuries effect them down the road?

I still maintain that this is purely a choice by the parents and kids. Sports are sports, with inherent risks. You can get hit in the head with a baseball, you can bang heads with another player going for a header in soccer. Should we ban those plays too? I understand the want to protect people, but you are still playing a game by choice and accepting the rules of that sport when you do so.

Either way, I'll probably wait to see the effects first hand, but that won't be for a few years.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Hockey Canada has been openly talking about getting at the private leagues for years, but I don't know why it what power they have to do so either.

As for liability, with all the potential lawsuits from concussions, what would it do for a small league who opened a checking league due to the other leagues stating their concern for serious injury and going non body checking?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hockey Canada has been openly talking about getting at the private leagues for years, but I don't know why it what power they have to do so either.

As for liability, with all the potential lawsuits from concussions, what would it do for a small league who opened a checking league due to the other leagues stating their concern for serious injury and going non body checking?

Well that would be between them and their insurers. If they are able to operate in the summer I don't see any reason why rates would suddenly increase to operate in the winter.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

How would they reign them in?

No idea, but I know a couple of fella's that are involved in Hockey Alberta and that was their take.

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.

I am the other way, I couldn't believe that the spring/summer hockey was not under the Umbrella. I have mentioned it before, but the fact that I (god forbid) could open my own Hockey Team is scary. By having it under the National Body and the sub provincial bodies, you ensure consistancy of coaching (or should) and consistancy of competition, etc..

Liability wouldn't be increased any more than it is with the summer leagues/tournaments that are contact.

Kids plays all winter in Peewee never hits, goes into spring/summer hockey get's lit up. At least now the players that are moving into spring/summer hockey have a winter of contact.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am the other way, I couldn't believe that the spring/summer hockey was not under the Umbrella. I have mentioned it before, but the fact that I (god forbid) could open my own Hockey Team is scary. By having it under the National Body and the sub provincial bodies, you ensure consistancy of coaching (or should) and consistancy of competition, etc..
.

But how does that make any sense? Hockey Alberta is a provincial off-shoot of Hockey Canada, neither one is a governmental organization, although they do receive government funding like other national sports organizations. I don't see where they derive the authority to tell anyone that they can't organize their own league with their own rules. Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see in the Annual reports and what not the power is simply a product of being the original governing body, which doesn't give them the right to prevent others from organizing to fit their needs.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that would be between them and their insurers. If they are able to operate in the summer I don't see any reason why rates would suddenly increase to operate in the winter.

I think the comment was more about risk visibility rather than rates

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think the comment was more about risk visibility rather than rates

Visibility to who then? The parent putting the players in these leagues? They would obviously be the parents who think that there should be contact at the pee-wee level, so I don't really see the issue. This would be maintaining the status quo and playing in a league that has the same rules as the vast majority of the country. I hardly see that being a stumbling block for a pretty large section of hockey parents and players at that age level.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by valo403

Visibility to who then? The parent putting the players in these leagues? They would obviously be the parents who think that there should be contact at the pee-wee level, so I don't really see the issue. This would be maintaining the status quo and playing in a league that has the same rules as the vast majority of the country. I hardly see that being a stumbling block for a pretty large section of hockey parents and players at that age level.

With proper waivers and such I'm sure it won't change anything. I was only commenting on what I thought the poster meant.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

But how does that make any sense? Hockey Alberta is a provincial off-shoot of Hockey Canada, neither one is a governmental organization, although they do receive government funding like other national sports organizations. I don't see where they derive the authority to tell anyone that they can't organize their own league with their own rules. Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see in the Annual reports and what not the power is simply a product of being the original governing body, which doesn't give them the right to prevent others from organizing to fit their needs.

By National I meant, across the Nation, not a Gov't entity.

I guess there is nothing stopping someone from setting up their own league. The idea of a National Governing Body to to ensure, amongst other things, a consistant standard.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Thanks for the insight, I wasn't aware of Quebec's situation. I would be interested to see the difference in long term dibilhitations as a result of hockey injuries in middle-aged people that went through full contact PeeWee vs those who went through Quebec's system. Because that's what we're really talking about here isn't it? How will these injuries effect them down the road?

I still maintain that this is purely a choice by the parents and kids. Sports are sports, with inherent risks. You can get hit in the head with a baseball, you can bang heads with another player going for a header in soccer. Should we ban those plays too? I understand the want to protect people, but you are still playing a game by choice and accepting the rules of that sport when you do so.

Either way, I'll probably wait to see the effects first hand, but that won't be for a few years.

The purely choice arguement runs into problems of peer pressure amoung parents and kids. The unsafe becomes normal and people end up viewing a concussion as part of hockey. Much like when seat belts were first introduced no one used them. It took ticketing people to make them change their behaviour.

Another example would be visors in the NHL. One player a year gets hurt when they wouldn't have because of not wearing a visor and players all argue it should be their choice. But at some point a league has to step in and make a decision to change the culture to have a safer environment.

[Hockeyguy15]

I think the nail was hit on the head earlier in this thread. I think the reason we see a concussion issue in Pee-Wee is because there is a lot more kids who aren't good enough with their skating/balance and their muscles are still developing. I don't know if there is a study so I am just basing this comment off watching hockey, but in my opinion I think a majority of concussions are not from a headshot but mostly from banging their head off the ice or boards after a hit.

Pee-Wee kids are still developing co-ordination and the muscles they need for balance, as well as neck muscles to prevent their head from bouncing off the ice and boards. Kids at higher levels are better off in the co-ordination department, but the whole muscles developing is up to mother nature.

I'm on the fence about moving hitting back to Bantam. Like some of you I think it should still be in Pee-Wee in the top tiers (maybe 3? I don't know). I agree that we need to do all we can to minimize concussions, but I'm not sure if this change will be effective as Hockey Alberta wants it to be.

Strengthen those neck muscles kids, you will need them in Bantam.

Edit: Oh and the comment about why don't you play contact beer league hockey? I don't feel like being chased around the ice at 11pm by some gorilla who thinks he can still make the NHL. The dream is dead, give it up. He was likely the same kid you played that couldn't not hit without his elbows or hands up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

By National I meant, across the Nation, not a Gov't entity.

I guess there is nothing stopping someone from setting up their own league. The idea of a National Governing Body to to ensure, amongst other things, a consistant standard.

I got your point, didn't mean to come across as arguing anything you said. I just find the idea that Hockey Alberta is talking about cracking down kind of weird as I can't figure out how they have the authority to crack down on anyone.

[Azure]

EDIT: Found my answer.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I got your point, didn't mean to come across as arguing anything you said. I just find the idea that Hockey Alberta is talking about cracking down kind of weird as I can't figure out how they have the authority to crack down on anyone.

Yeah I can't answer that either.

I am actually pretty insterested to see what happens if they do try to "shut them down" or bring them under the Hockey Alberta Umbrella (I think this is what will happen, based soley on the $ availible).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do you know this?

Various studies. I'll look for links. Biggest one compared Quebec to Ontario, as Quebec has had no body checking in peewee since 1985. The level of injuries in peewee is 2-3 times higher with body checking, yet bantam is body checking in both places and injuries are the same

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

EDIT: Found my answer.

Injuries actually do increase in Bantam as a result of moving up hitting. Alberta has lower injuries in Bantam than Quebec. However the reduction in injuries in Peewee overwelms the increase in injuries in Bantam.

Read the link I posted above.

The press releases are misleading when they state no increase in injuries have been found in Bantam.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

Injuries actually do increase in Bantam as a result of moving up hitting. Alberta has lower injuries in Bantam than Quebec. However the reduction in injuries in Peewee overwelms the increase in injuries in Bantam.

Read the link I posted above.

The press releases are misleading when they state no increase in injuries have been found in Bantam.

Well this brings back my point then. If there shows to be an increase in injuries in Bantam that is a very bad thing IMO. Because I think the injuries we see in Bantam are more severe than those in PeeWee purely based on the size and speed of the kids and the differences between them.