Problem began when coaches stopped teaching mites to skate through the opponent, two hands on the stick focus on the puck.
If hitting stops the precious stickhandlers from learning to dangle maybe thats a good idea because high school and college d-men love to destroy danglers. I say hit at mites through the hands, teach squirts to check hands down and make the game safer for everyone. At 30 lbs going 12 mph zero injuries lots of experience, bantams are between 6'5" and 5'-disparity=injuries
Hockey is not simply a game of stickhandling, at teh next level-HS hitting is fierce, beyond that it is dangerous if you don't have skill and the experience-watched Messier, Barnaby and another former NHL star discuss this and they believe players who don't play contact early don't learn dangerous places on the ice. Result is lots of injuries, bad injuries.
While you can learn to toe drag and go top shelf on the driveway by yourself you need the experience to know where you can go safely.
As President of an organization I am appalled by the lack of consideration for the players and administrators of the game before a decision of this magnitude is taken.
Obviously if player education is going to be improved the number of injuries will be diminished, we could have qadded education without reducing the game to 1 on 1 basketball.
Oldest son learned to hit as a mite and until juniors he never was injured. My second son lots of injuries, age change player-enough said-bad rule chg
This is the "Big Justification" . A couple video's and some music. Does anyone know who the brain child of this is that just set american skaters back 3 years from the canadians...? I'd like to check him illegally
As a Peewee Coach, I am torn about this rule. It will be nice to go through a game without two or three hurt kids on the back bench, but I will have to adjust a few teaching points.
As a Dad of a smaller player who has already had two concussions, I hope it will avoid a third or more serious one.
As a Doctor, I must applaud the effort to make the game safer for our children.
As a Player, one who always played physically, it changes the game. Not necessarily for the better, just different.
I have mcuh sympath about the smaller player in term of checking. But, consider this, if they are not prepared at earlier age when checking is still "gentle", it will even more difficult for them to adapt at Bantam level, and more prone to such type of injuries.
As a Peewee Coach, I am torn about this rule. It will be nice to go through a game without two or three hurt kids on the back bench, but I will have to adjust a few teaching points.
As a Dad of a smaller player who has already had two concussions, I hope it will avoid a third or more serious one.
As a Doctor, I must applaud the effort to make the game safer for our children.
As a Player, one who always played physically, it changes the game. Not necessarily for the better, just different.
I am torn on this new approach. I played youth hockey and we were allowed to check from the day we started and I do not recall a single concussion being suffered as a result of a check. My son is a mite now (and on the small side), and while I see the advantages of developing his skating skills before allowing checking, I can also see an advantage to introducing checking at a younger age, so that they become familiar with proper technique sooner, and it becomes second nature.
If they wait until they are Bantams to learn to check, they will be more scared to do it and could have more injuries. It's better to teach them younger how to do safe checks and what is allowed and what is not, so buy the time they get a little older and bigger, they know what to do and WHAT NOT TO DO. Plus, by the time they are Bantams, if they have not been checking, the smaller kids will be intimidated by the bigger kids. Learn proper checking techniques & size isn't that much of an issue.
Call the penalties on the actual dangerous checks, as they already do: boarding, charging, from behind, etc, but don't strip away the game. With equipment getting so much more high tech and safer every year anyway there is really no need for this.
@mnravelovechick The newer (harder) equipment is actually one of the causes of checking injuries, particularly to the head. The equipment is even more reason for the kids to learn proper checking technique, I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it?
Are you kidding? Pretty much all those "illegal" checks were still pretty safe checks; maybe not the one where the kid slid into the boards offscreen.A solid open ice check is one of the greatest parts of the game, and including checking at a level where kids are not quite as mature and strong is only going to benefit them, not hurt them. Kids are going to get pummeled when they go into Bantams thinking they can just walk around guys all day, and then they get owned.
Awful. This is a crucial year in learning the correct way to play this sport. Learning to not always be so focused on the puck is a giant step for players. Defensemen are going to suffer greatly because of this set back in their development.
I have an issue with using the hit at the 2 min mark as an example. Although that player did hit in an aggressive way, it might set a precedent for 1 on 1s where the defenseman is forced to play only the puck. 1 on 1s is a situation where it is important to play the body, and, to a degree, ignore the puck. Getting in the forward's way rather than poking at the puck is a skill should be taught from early stages and should be allowed at all levels.
I have an issue with using the hit at the 2 min mark as an example. Although that player did hit in an aggressive way, it might set a precedent for 1 on 1s where the defenseman is forced to play only the puck. 1 on 1s is a situation where it is important to play the body, and, to a degree, ignore the puck. Getting in the forward's way rather than poking at the puck is a skill should be taught from early stages and should be allowed at all levels.
This change makes perfect sense from both a safety and skills development aspect. No change is easy. The squirt kids moving up, who are just developing confidence can use the additional 2 years to really develop and refine those skills. Any kid who has more confidence, will play better and is more likely to stay with the game. Comments about USAH not caring, "gaying" up the game and the like have no place in this forum, especially if they are being made by USAH coaches.
More specifically, doesn't USA HOCKEY care what happens to the kids who unfortunately fall into the '99 birth year??? They just went through their first year of Pee Wee hockey getting manhandled by the '98's. Now, they expect the 99's to go back to non-checking, which will totally rewire them to that style of play after an entire year of muscle memory is absorbed.
In 2012, the 99s will be mauled going in against 98s with 3 years of checking behind them!
that #91 for BT is a beast lmao. ive been playing my whole life and it is part of the game.. Canadians will run all over the US in tournaments and overall play. Yes i understand Europeans have a similar rule and focus more on the skating and stick work, but come on..... Hitting isnt a bad thing.
This is crazy. As someone who makes much of my living coaching and teaching hockey players....this is insane. Bantams checking for the first time...ouch. Have the hospital on standby. They should actually be trying to add more rub outs and angling to squirts. They can't hurt each other doing that. It will also teach them to protect themselves. Too many people sitting around trying to figure out how to fix something not broken. To stop the concussions... stop falling for the M11 helmet scam.
If Mike Milbury gives signs off on this it has to be right for player development. Who knows more about hockey players and coaching then him. I'm glad that there won't be checking. It will give my player a chance to develop further and mature physically prior to knock out checking.
@MrJohnnyboats Dont need to really give a reason, if you see him on t.v. you know why ,it just my opinion. if you are refering to the rule change read the majority of the comments on here. if it passes remember this thread in a couple years when there a more severe injuries in bantam, you can only teach how to check, but to learn you have to do it in a game,and smaller kids hitting each other is a lot less painfull than bigger kids , just seems like commonsence.bantams willnot be anymore prepard
All I know is that they took checking out of the Pee Wee ranks and when I got to the Bantam Ranks nobody knew how to hit. The biggest challenge is teaching the kids at a younger age the appropriate way to take the body. In my first year of Bantams I must have seen at least a dozen kids taken off the ice on stretchers and a neck brace. The other challenge is how to teach a kids on how to take a hit. If they take checking out of these levels I think it will do more harm.
Bantams are too big and fast to just be learning to check. There will be proportionally many more life threatening and serious injuries at the Bantam level, than the corresponding reduction in serious injuries at the PeeWee level. Coaches cannot take the time to teach in practice what can't be done in a game. There isn't enough ice time as it is... We would be better off allowing checking at the Squirt level while they are small.
@HuntBow91 I agree with you 100% ,This is another step toward the pussafacation of america !!!!!! my oldest son is a house league player going into his second year of pee wee and has made checking part of his game , now he has to learn to stop checking for his second year?? then reintroduce it the year after. Also wait and see if they show you stats of concusions for bantum in two year bet there will be more that in peewee you can only teach the howto in checking but its learned playing to game
As a parent, I appreciate the intent here. My 11 year old suffered a pretty nasty concussion by a malicious player making a blind-side hit with no intent to play the puck.
As a coach, I also appreciate the extra years to develop skills without (supposed) worry of being drilled. I also fear this will not be implemented consistently among officials. As a coach, I also am not clear on how the kids are expected to practice checking, but, not do it in games...not very intuitive to say the least.
This is great, however the problem lies in the officiating!! every referee will interpete the rule differantly and the kids will not know what is correct and what is not. I'm all for the phase in of checking and believe this is the right thing to do, but USA hockey needs to make sure ALL refs know what is legal and what is a penalty.
The biggest issue I see with this is quite simply player education. The injuries come from incorrectly executed checks initiated by players who have either never been taught how to check or be checked properly, or who do so maliciously with the intent to harm. The blindside hits and open ice drills are the biggest problem.
I agree that checking should be developed over years, but from the fools I've seen coaching the sport, there's a long, hard road to hoe to get there safely.
Problem began when coaches stopped teaching mites to skate through the opponent, two hands on the stick focus on the puck.
If hitting stops the precious stickhandlers from learning to dangle maybe thats a good idea because high school and college d-men love to destroy danglers. I say hit at mites through the hands, teach squirts to check hands down and make the game safer for everyone. At 30 lbs going 12 mph zero injuries lots of experience, bantams are between 6'5" and 5'-disparity=injuries
Rhopperre1 7 months ago
Hockey is not simply a game of stickhandling, at teh next level-HS hitting is fierce, beyond that it is dangerous if you don't have skill and the experience-watched Messier, Barnaby and another former NHL star discuss this and they believe players who don't play contact early don't learn dangerous places on the ice. Result is lots of injuries, bad injuries.
While you can learn to toe drag and go top shelf on the driveway by yourself you need the experience to know where you can go safely.
Rhopperre1 7 months ago
As President of an organization I am appalled by the lack of consideration for the players and administrators of the game before a decision of this magnitude is taken.
Obviously if player education is going to be improved the number of injuries will be diminished, we could have qadded education without reducing the game to 1 on 1 basketball.
Oldest son learned to hit as a mite and until juniors he never was injured. My second son lots of injuries, age change player-enough said-bad rule chg
Rhopperre1 7 months ago
what a load of shit.
theawesomehuntsman 7 months ago
This is the "Big Justification" . A couple video's and some music. Does anyone know who the brain child of this is that just set american skaters back 3 years from the canadians...? I'd like to check him illegally
iraqihockey 7 months ago
As a Peewee Coach, I am torn about this rule. It will be nice to go through a game without two or three hurt kids on the back bench, but I will have to adjust a few teaching points.
As a Dad of a smaller player who has already had two concussions, I hope it will avoid a third or more serious one.
As a Doctor, I must applaud the effort to make the game safer for our children.
As a Player, one who always played physically, it changes the game. Not necessarily for the better, just different.
swaintierney 8 months ago
@swaintierney
I have mcuh sympath about the smaller player in term of checking. But, consider this, if they are not prepared at earlier age when checking is still "gentle", it will even more difficult for them to adapt at Bantam level, and more prone to such type of injuries.
PlayHockeyForFun 8 months ago
As a Peewee Coach, I am torn about this rule. It will be nice to go through a game without two or three hurt kids on the back bench, but I will have to adjust a few teaching points.
As a Dad of a smaller player who has already had two concussions, I hope it will avoid a third or more serious one.
As a Doctor, I must applaud the effort to make the game safer for our children.
As a Player, one who always played physically, it changes the game. Not necessarily for the better, just different.
swaintierney 8 months ago
I am torn on this new approach. I played youth hockey and we were allowed to check from the day we started and I do not recall a single concussion being suffered as a result of a check. My son is a mite now (and on the small side), and while I see the advantages of developing his skating skills before allowing checking, I can also see an advantage to introducing checking at a younger age, so that they become familiar with proper technique sooner, and it becomes second nature.
BadFast12 8 months ago
If they wait until they are Bantams to learn to check, they will be more scared to do it and could have more injuries. It's better to teach them younger how to do safe checks and what is allowed and what is not, so buy the time they get a little older and bigger, they know what to do and WHAT NOT TO DO. Plus, by the time they are Bantams, if they have not been checking, the smaller kids will be intimidated by the bigger kids. Learn proper checking techniques & size isn't that much of an issue.
bluesrevenge 9 months ago
@bluesrevenge
I have exactly same feeling as yours when this rule is officialized. My son plays PeeWee right now.
I like to see him checking at even ealier age, so that he will be ready when it is "real" in older age groups.
PlayHockeyForFun 8 months ago
I think they should allow checking at board meetings!Do you think anyone would be timid and less likely to express themselves?
3stblue 9 months ago
Call the penalties on the actual dangerous checks, as they already do: boarding, charging, from behind, etc, but don't strip away the game. With equipment getting so much more high tech and safer every year anyway there is really no need for this.
mnravelovechick 9 months ago
@mnravelovechick The newer (harder) equipment is actually one of the causes of checking injuries, particularly to the head. The equipment is even more reason for the kids to learn proper checking technique, I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it?
BadFast12 8 months ago
Are you kidding? Pretty much all those "illegal" checks were still pretty safe checks; maybe not the one where the kid slid into the boards offscreen.A solid open ice check is one of the greatest parts of the game, and including checking at a level where kids are not quite as mature and strong is only going to benefit them, not hurt them. Kids are going to get pummeled when they go into Bantams thinking they can just walk around guys all day, and then they get owned.
mnravelovechick 9 months ago
Awful. This is a crucial year in learning the correct way to play this sport. Learning to not always be so focused on the puck is a giant step for players. Defensemen are going to suffer greatly because of this set back in their development.
theblackbudda 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have an issue with using the hit at the 2 min mark as an example. Although that player did hit in an aggressive way, it might set a precedent for 1 on 1s where the defenseman is forced to play only the puck. 1 on 1s is a situation where it is important to play the body, and, to a degree, ignore the puck. Getting in the forward's way rather than poking at the puck is a skill should be taught from early stages and should be allowed at all levels.
johnnybgood03 9 months ago
I have an issue with using the hit at the 2 min mark as an example. Although that player did hit in an aggressive way, it might set a precedent for 1 on 1s where the defenseman is forced to play only the puck. 1 on 1s is a situation where it is important to play the body, and, to a degree, ignore the puck. Getting in the forward's way rather than poking at the puck is a skill should be taught from early stages and should be allowed at all levels.
johnnybgood03 9 months ago
FUCK USA hockey they took out checking for peewees.till 14 yrs old
narutofan1071 10 months ago
This change makes perfect sense from both a safety and skills development aspect. No change is easy. The squirt kids moving up, who are just developing confidence can use the additional 2 years to really develop and refine those skills. Any kid who has more confidence, will play better and is more likely to stay with the game. Comments about USAH not caring, "gaying" up the game and the like have no place in this forum, especially if they are being made by USAH coaches.
jamesabourque 10 months ago
More specifically, doesn't USA HOCKEY care what happens to the kids who unfortunately fall into the '99 birth year??? They just went through their first year of Pee Wee hockey getting manhandled by the '98's. Now, they expect the 99's to go back to non-checking, which will totally rewire them to that style of play after an entire year of muscle memory is absorbed.
In 2012, the 99s will be mauled going in against 98s with 3 years of checking behind them!
Am I crazy, or does that sound insane?
tjbray 10 months ago
I didn't think you could GAY up hockey, but they finally did
SuperShoe16 10 months ago
that #91 for BT is a beast lmao. ive been playing my whole life and it is part of the game.. Canadians will run all over the US in tournaments and overall play. Yes i understand Europeans have a similar rule and focus more on the skating and stick work, but come on..... Hitting isnt a bad thing.
Rydog5 10 months ago
USA Hockey has said that 60% of player drop out of hockey at checking age.
If you run some numbers, and keep those kids in hockey, you have a 30% increase in revenue.HUM..........
denturehead 11 months ago
@denturehead
But there are many other factors besides checking that cause this drop
jamesabourque 10 months ago
@denturehead
That probably is the real motive behind this rule change
PlayHockeyForFun 8 months ago
This is crazy. As someone who makes much of my living coaching and teaching hockey players....this is insane. Bantams checking for the first time...ouch. Have the hospital on standby. They should actually be trying to add more rub outs and angling to squirts. They can't hurt each other doing that. It will also teach them to protect themselves. Too many people sitting around trying to figure out how to fix something not broken. To stop the concussions... stop falling for the M11 helmet scam.
LeeRoy517 11 months ago
Some useful comments instead of the music would be nice.
jfpack 11 months ago 5
If Mike Milbury gives signs off on this it has to be right for player development. Who knows more about hockey players and coaching then him. I'm glad that there won't be checking. It will give my player a chance to develop further and mature physically prior to knock out checking.
MrJohnnyboats 11 months ago
@MrJohnnyboats Mike Milbury is a tool!!!!!
machz800ps 9 months ago
@machz800ps Can you give a little more reason as to why you think that way. or are you just another tool to be ignored.
MrJohnnyboats 9 months ago
@MrJohnnyboats Dont need to really give a reason, if you see him on t.v. you know why ,it just my opinion. if you are refering to the rule change read the majority of the comments on here. if it passes remember this thread in a couple years when there a more severe injuries in bantam, you can only teach how to check, but to learn you have to do it in a game,and smaller kids hitting each other is a lot less painfull than bigger kids , just seems like commonsence.bantams willnot be anymore prepard
machz800ps 9 months ago
@machz800ps thanks for your reply.
MrJohnnyboats 9 months ago
All I know is that they took checking out of the Pee Wee ranks and when I got to the Bantam Ranks nobody knew how to hit. The biggest challenge is teaching the kids at a younger age the appropriate way to take the body. In my first year of Bantams I must have seen at least a dozen kids taken off the ice on stretchers and a neck brace. The other challenge is how to teach a kids on how to take a hit. If they take checking out of these levels I think it will do more harm.
parkhiindian 11 months ago
Bantams are too big and fast to just be learning to check. There will be proportionally many more life threatening and serious injuries at the Bantam level, than the corresponding reduction in serious injuries at the PeeWee level. Coaches cannot take the time to teach in practice what can't be done in a game. There isn't enough ice time as it is... We would be better off allowing checking at the Squirt level while they are small.
HuntBow91 11 months ago 7
We already have a league for this. It's called USA In-Line. Roller Hockey.
SNKYSND65 10 months ago
@HuntBow91 I agree with you 100% ,This is another step toward the pussafacation of america !!!!!! my oldest son is a house league player going into his second year of pee wee and has made checking part of his game , now he has to learn to stop checking for his second year?? then reintroduce it the year after. Also wait and see if they show you stats of concusions for bantum in two year bet there will be more that in peewee you can only teach the howto in checking but its learned playing to game
machz800ps 9 months ago
Great! Another rule to put Americans further behind Canadien hockey players!
nellymnrsmt 1 year ago
hockey players arnt pussy i think we can do more than rub a player off
H0ck3ykid12 1 year ago
at 1:33 i like how the puck was in his skates
H0ck3ykid12 1 year ago
@H0ck3ykid12 also he had the puck a half a second before
H0ck3ykid12 1 year ago
As a parent, I appreciate the intent here. My 11 year old suffered a pretty nasty concussion by a malicious player making a blind-side hit with no intent to play the puck.
As a coach, I also appreciate the extra years to develop skills without (supposed) worry of being drilled. I also fear this will not be implemented consistently among officials. As a coach, I also am not clear on how the kids are expected to practice checking, but, not do it in games...not very intuitive to say the least.
chrisb4nu 1 year ago 2
This is great, however the problem lies in the officiating!! every referee will interpete the rule differantly and the kids will not know what is correct and what is not. I'm all for the phase in of checking and believe this is the right thing to do, but USA hockey needs to make sure ALL refs know what is legal and what is a penalty.
ChubbsnGang 1 year ago
The biggest issue I see with this is quite simply player education. The injuries come from incorrectly executed checks initiated by players who have either never been taught how to check or be checked properly, or who do so maliciously with the intent to harm. The blindside hits and open ice drills are the biggest problem.
I agree that checking should be developed over years, but from the fools I've seen coaching the sport, there's a long, hard road to hoe to get there safely.
TheWitchOvAgnesi 1 year ago
You can change all the rules you want. Until the officiating gets better and more consistent, the game will not get better.
foriautomation 1 year ago
I like how you gave us examples on what's legal and not
be4zero 1 year ago