"Elite" Minor Hockey

[CroCop]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I know that this is the biggest argument from the "pro hitting" crowd. Should these kids even really be trying out for AAA hockey? If they can't handle try outs they will not be able to handle a full year of it, but that is a call the parents sneed to make. It's the same kid getting smoked at bantam try outs or pee wee evaluations, experts say that 11-12 yr olds are more susceptible to injury and concussions then a 13-14 yr old. But like I said earlier, it is all moot as there will be no contact in minor hockey within 10 years.

I also want to say that down here in Lethbridge, there are 9 first year bantams on the AAA team,of course none of them played contact last year. Smart hockey players who know to keep there heads up, some of them are pretty small to, but they are doing just fine against all the older, bigger teams.

Those first year bantams from Lethbridge are not a fair example for no hitting. Entering this season each of them would've played at least 100+ games of contact hockey. That group were fully prepared for contact at the bantam level and have been trained for contact and physical play since atom.

I'm familiar with that 01 group and their coaching. They have all played spring hockey since early novice age and their development is the byproduct of a good spring hockey program.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm pretty sure it's correct. I think my partner offered to grab it and was threatened with ejection.

Either way, the fact that you can't bring out a rule book is just another way to protect refs from responsibility (coupled with avoiding delays of the game, which means it would make more sense for a delay of game bench-minor than an ejections).

But that's pretty low on my list of transgressions with Hockey Calgary/Alberta/Canada. That list begins with taking hitting out of PeeWee, which I think is full-blown idiocy.

I think from a time management stand point its a good idea.

But the other thing is when your working with lower leagues you essentially have a teenager making $14/ hour who is expected to know an 80+ page rule book cover to cover. Its just not realistic, so it is important for coaches to understand that they are doing their best to be fair to both teams and they will make mistakes along the way.

The important thing is that as many kids as possible get to play the game, professional refs or coaches having the opportunity to prove how smart they are is not going to make that happen.

As for hitting, I would be very in favour of a progressive introduction.
something like,

Peewee div 1 & 2.
Bantam AAA - div 4
Midget all.

I saw some lower level Bantam games last year, and there is no argument that hitting does not belong in those games.

[GioforPM]

I agree with the graduated idea. My kid is in a lower Pee Wee level however, but disagrees with me because he wants to hit. I think he hasn't realized she will be hit as well. ��

I do think it's amusing that taking hitting out of Pee Wee is "pure idiocy" on one hand but there's "no argument" to support hitting on the other.

[Coach]

Pretty much agree with #-3's point and the higher levels of PeeWee and Bantam having hitting.

My argument is purely anecdotal, but from my 6 years coaching Div 1 and AA Bantam, the size difference of kids at that level scares me when neither of them know how to make or receive a hit. I've had players that are 5'0 and 100lbs soaking wet, and players that are 6'2 200lbs. Even with the way was, the speed these kids play at, there were times I would cringe. I couldn't imagine what would happen if that 6'0 kid thought it was ok to slam his forearm into the 5'0 kid's head. It happens sometimes, it's a contact sport and kids can be dumb. But in my opinion it will happen with more frequency as an accident with the rule change, rather than the odd kid who does it on purpose.

Of course removing hitting from PeeWee will lower the number of injuries in PeeWee, my concern is harsher injuries at a higher level when there's more speed and size discrepancy between kids.

On top of that, it's a sport. No different than football, or lacrosse, or rugby or whatever, people WILL get hurt playing a contact sport. It's inevitable. If you don't want your kid to take the risk don't let them play, or sign them up for non-contact (plenty of options there). If non-contact isn't competitive enough, well the hitting is part of the competitive side of it, sorry.

Every kid has to go through PeeWee and Bantam. The kids in the top divisions should be taught the entire game.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think from a time management stand point its a good idea.

But the other thing is when your working with lower leagues you essentially have a teenager making $14/ hour who is expected to know an 80+ page rule book cover to cover. Its just not realistic, so it is important for coaches to understand that they are doing their best to be fair to both teams and they will make mistakes along the way.

The important thing is that as many kids as possible get to play the game, professional refs or coaches having the opportunity to prove how smart they are is not going to make that happen.

As for hitting, I would be very in favour of a progressive introduction.
something like,

Peewee div 1 & 2.
Bantam AAA - div 4
Midget all.

I saw some lower level Bantam games last year, and there is no argument that hitting does not belong in those games.

I agree that this would be good but why would you allow all midget leagues to have hitting? These kids are one or two years away from beer league hockey, what advantage would there be to introtducing them to contact hockey at 16?

[Northendzone]

also think that having hitting in Pee-Wee Div 1/2 - would make the evaluation process a little more complex - how would you sort out the kids on the ice who are good enough to play 1/2 - but are not interested in hitting - from the ones that want to hit.

also these kids in pee-wee who have never hit, likely only think of being the hammer, never the nail.

next fall the 2002 kids will be eligible to try out for quadrant hockey - this will be the first time for some of them to have to deal with hitting on a regular and sustained basis - some of them likely had a few practices at the end of this season where they practiced some techniques of hitting, but not at game speed - it will be interesting to hear what folks who work with the Buffs, NorthStars and Royals etc see going on in next falls evaluations.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by TimSJ

Just getting the introduction to the Elite Spring hockey this year.. My son is a 2008 kid and is a pretty good player in his age group. has been doing an outside program a day or two a week for the winter and will be playing in their spring program.. It is mainly developmental with them going away to one tournament in Halifax in May and a couple of games against some other spring teams that are around.

Yesterday i get a call from a coach of a team in Boston they have heard aobut my kid and want him to come and play for them in 2 tournaments this spring one in Boston and one in NH. not really looking for any money out of us either just jersey and socks waiving registration and tournament fees.

Crazy to me that at 6 years old he is getting recruited to play on teams and in tournaments..

He is excited of course and dad is pretty proud of his boy.

Most parents would be proud to have their son scouted. However, like Derek Sutton mentioned, the other parents might not be too impressed with your boy taking away ice time from their kids. I would also be suspicious of a coach looking for ringers for tournaments at such a young age. If it was me, I would just put him in a local program and keep loyal to that team.

[GioforPM]

I'm sure it's because I'm uninformed, but "elite" hockey at age 6? That's second year Timbits. I knw there are a few kids who've skated with their brothers since they were 3, but I didn't think they started identifying elite talent in players until much later.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm sure it's because I'm uninformed, but "elite" hockey at age 6? That's second year Timbits. I knw there are a few kids who've skated with their brothers since they were 3, but I didn't think they started identifying elite talent in players until much later.

The gap in talent at that age can be huge. Kids that skate well and can roof a puck get bored pretty easy skating around kids that can barely stand up on skates.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

also think that having hitting in Pee-Wee Div 1/2 - would make the evaluation process a little more complex - how would you sort out the kids on the ice who are good enough to play 1/2 - but are not interested in hitting - from the ones that want to hit.

also these kids in pee-wee who have never hit, likely only think of being the hammer, never the nail.

next fall the 2002 kids will be eligible to try out for quadrant hockey - this will be the first time for some of them to have to deal with hitting on a regular and sustained basis - some of them likely had a few practices at the end of this season where they practiced some techniques of hitting, but not at game speed - it will be interesting to hear what folks who work with the Buffs, NorthStars and Royals etc see going on in next falls evaluations.

Another concern with the Tiers is call-ups. If PeeWee 2 needs a callup from PeeWee 3, that single kid is going from contact to non-contact mid-season.

Pretty much anyone I talked to when they first decided on this who is actively involved in the everyday for minor hockey (other coaches, coordinators, managers, majority of parents) thought this was a bad idea.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The gap in talent at that age can be huge. Kids that skate well and can roof a puck get bored pretty easy skating around kids that can barely stand up on skates.

It's more often a gap in skating experience at that age. I know the gap is big (and they do tier even the Timbits). I just haven't considered a kid who can skate well at age 6 to be an "elite" hockey player, much less scouted. Simply because those kids often regress to the norm and lots of the "average" kids progress higher.

Off point - I've always noticed that the smaller kids tend to be "elite" (if we want to call it that) up to a certain level, then the big kids catch up. A kid that used to play on my son's lower level team has a monster sized dad who played fairly high level, and in the last two years he's moved way up in evaluations and at the same time as become a real tall kid.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I agree with pretty much all of this, however any coach who pulls out a rule book deserves an immiediate game ejection. I have never had a coach pull one out on me, and hopefully never will. Coaches should be focused on coaching, yelling at the Ref will not get your team anywhere, and most decent coaches know this. Refs also should not be expected to justify EVERY call to a team as some coaches expect, some coaches are ridiculous this way, it is not a debate contest it is a hockey game.

Having controll of the game is so much more then making the calls, it is about posititve interactions and respecting the players and coaches and enjoying what you are doing. So many Refs act as if they are shift supervisors at a Wal Mart on a power trip and it is embarassing. Anyways reffing in minor hockey can be debated till the cows come home.

You should always expect the officials in all levels of hockey to make about the same amount of mistakes as the players would (TimBits/Novice/Atom = Expect them to get dressed close to correctly, Bantam 8 = 50 mistakes, Midget AAA = 5 mistakes, Junior A = 3 mistakes, CIS/WHL/NHL = 1 mistake, etc.).

It is also well known in the hockey world, that EVERY rule in the book will never be called 100% of the time. Is a slash always a slash? Nope. Depends on how hard, point of impact, dangerousness, and consequence. If every thing that fits the definition of a minor penalty was called, hockey would suck. Constant stoppages and 3 on 3 all game. If you don't believe me, read the definitions of holding, hooking, or slashing and go to a game where you have no bias (this part is important). Bring a piece of paper and try to catch and count all of the possible penalties.

Coaches in minor hockey should not be asking about minor penalties. There is no need for this conversation in low levels of hockey. A major or a disputed goal is a different story. Coaches who "ask" (read: complain) about every call while flapping their arms like an angry bird get tuned out and ignored, or gassed. Smart coaches, who focus on coaching and making adjustments, and ask about 1 call during a game get their air time and a solid response.

A good referee will be constantly talking and communicating on the ice with the players. A good ref is consistent and readable (a good coach knows when to tell players to ease up on stick-work because it's getting called, but hard position battles in front of the net are fair game).

Personally, I've been refereeing for 18 years (started when I was 13). I am a level 5 Hockey Canada referee at the top level of non-professional hockey (CIS Mens). This game has taught me a lot about life and how to handle people.

[automaton 3]

Related to the tiering: the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell has a chapter examining the birth dates of NHL players, and it turns out they are predominately born towards the beginning of the calendar year.

The kids born nearest the age cutoff on average will be bigger and more coordinated than the kids born later in that age group. They are consequently more likely be selected to receive better coaching and icetime and move up the ranks.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What type of a grown man tells a respectful 14 year old to eff off? That shouldn't be tolerated whatsoever. If we or a player said that to him it would be a suspension for abuse of officials.

The worst part is Hockey Calgary will hear no wrong about their officials.

/Ref rant.

I seriously hope that Hockey Calgary would take this complaint seriously. I know they have protocols to follow... But this is a serious issue.

Referees can and do earn suspensions for reverse abuse for this type of thing. Please do everyone a favour and go through the process to have this dealt with.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

You should always expect the officials in all levels of hockey to make about the same amount of mistakes as the players would (TimBits/Novice/Atom = Expect them to get dressed close to correctly, Bantam 8 = 50 mistakes, Midget AAA = 5 mistakes, Junior A = 3 mistakes, CIS/WHL/NHL = 1 mistake, etc.).

^ this - the reality is that the players miss passes, miss open nets, miss checks - the refs miss stuff too. as a coach focus on what you can control.

i am sure that over teh course of the season the calls balance out. And if you get "screwed" by a ref - it is frustrating, but you need to move on.

the classic example is the 2002 womens gold medal game - the ladies kept moving forward when it could have been very easy to become totally unraveled.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Related to the tiering: the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell has a chapter examining the birth dates of NHL players, and it turns out they are predominately born towards the beginning of the calendar year.

The kids born nearest the age cutoff on average will be bigger and more coordinated than the kids born later in that age group. They are consequently more likely be selected to receive better coaching and icetime and move up the ranks.

It's true. Just looking at the birth dates of the kids on my sons 2007 spring team. We are attending lots of birthday parties in the first few months of the year. Of course there are some exceptions. One kid has a birthday on December 15.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I agree that this would be good but why would you allow all midget leagues to have hitting? These kids are one or two years away from beer league hockey, what advantage would there be to introtducing them to contact hockey at 16?

There is the rec league as well, of course.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

I seriously hope that Hockey Calgary would take this complaint seriously. I know they have protocols to follow... But this is a serious issue.

Referees can and do earn suspensions for reverse abuse for this type of thing. Please do everyone a favour and go through the process to have this dealt with.

We did (it was last season). It became he said/she said and because no one could prove what he said (he actually said it to 3 separate players on our squad, according to them), nothing ever happened.

Why would we complain about it and go through the long process if it didn't happen? Why would 3 separate teenagers lie about and be visibly upset about this?

We did however, see an uptick in monitoring of games and one ref, who was consistently terrible for both sides and never felt the need to explain anything to either coach, became noticeably absent from our games.

I've coached a few different levels of Bantam (and obviously played all the way through minor hockey, all at relatively high levels). I have never seen reffing as poor as it is at Bantam AA. Not just missed/blown call wise, but pure d-baggery from the refs. And these guys aren't kids. They are mostly in their mid-twenties-30s and should know better. Both sets of coaches would leave games shaking their heads about officiating I would say 7/10 games, and it would be openly discussed between the opposing sides, no matter who won it was agreed. I don't know what they need to do, but the people they have doing it now are just awful. I could deal with missed calls, of course it understandable they happen. It's the personalities that are doing it that really do cause issues.

Not saying some coaches don't cause issues as well, but in that league inparticular, the reffing was unbearable.

[showtime]

Originally Posted by MattyC

We did (it was last season). It became he said/she said and because no one could prove what he said (he actually said it to 3 separate players on our squad, according to them), nothing ever happened.

Why would we complain about it and go through the long process if it didn't happen? Why would 3 separate teenagers lie about and be visibly upset about this?

We did however, see an uptick in monitoring of games and one ref, who was consistently terrible for both sides and never felt the need to explain anything to either coach, became noticeably absent from our games.

I've coached a few different levels of Bantam (and obviously played all the way through minor hockey, all at relatively high levels). I have never seen reffing as poor as it is at Bantam AA. Not just missed/blown call wise, but pure d-baggery from the refs. And these guys aren't kids. They are mostly in their mid-twenties-30s and should know better. Both sets of coaches would leave games shaking their heads about officiating I would say 7/10 games, and it would be openly discussed between the opposing sides, no matter who won it was agreed. I don't know what they need to do, but the people they have doing it now are just awful. I could deal with missed calls, of course it understandable they happen. It's the personalities that are doing it that really do cause issues.

Not saying some coaches don't cause issues as well, but in that league inparticular, the reffing was unbearable.

The ref actually ended up admitting he told kids to fata off and used slurs. We contacted league and they said the ref apologized so they consider it a closed case. Basically we could pay and file a formal complaint but nothing would happen.

[Coach]

Thanks for the clarification showtime, I'm glad I didn't have to get too involved in that BS.

Can you confirm the rest of my post? lol. I would assume the reffing at Midget A has been better. Or I hope, anyway.