Did anybody catch the OTL piece this morning?

[Captain Sane 2]

I think you can find it on the espn website somewhere if you didn't see it, but it was a pretty interesting segment about what USA Hockey and other youth hockey governing bodies are doing to reduce concussions. USA Hockey's plan is to increase the age when players start checking to Bantam (13), and Minnesota Hockey has instituted a "Fair Play" point in games at the youth level, which apparently means teams get a point in the standings if they play clean. It concluded with a panel of the NHL VP of Hockey Ops (Kris King, I think), Mark Messier and Matthew Barnaby. All three seemed to disagree with what USA Hockey is doing and felt it was more a problem that can be solved by teaching proper technique (and Mess got a couple plugs for the M11 helmet, of course).

I'd say I'm definitely in agreement with Mess and company, increasing the checking age will only lead to more players who don't know how to check/receive a check and injuries will be increased in the long run. If anything I feel like checking should start younger, I remember Hockey Canada thinking about doing this a while back but apparently it either didn't go through or was changed. I'm not involved in coaching right now but if I was, the first thing I would be working on with my team was proper checking technique, but as I recall when I was a Pee Wee there wasn't much instruction on that.

Thoughts? Do you agree with USA Hockey's plan?

[Barts66 0]

I, along with many others, disagree with what USA hockey is doing. I had to take the PeeWee checking clinic about six years ago, and it was possibly the biggest waste of time I've ever had. All you had to do was show up for an hour session, and after that you could go play. Never do I recall being taught during my first year how to check during the regular season.

If anything, like you said, the checking age should be moved younger, or only hits along the boards should be allowed. If I remember correctly, a hitting from behind penalty in Canada results in a game miscoundcut and at least a one game suspension. In the U.S, all you get is a 2 and 10. Most kids arent going to change their habits if they only have to sit out for less than a period. What USA hockey is doing is wrong, they are just trying to appease to big time media like ESPN IMO.

[Chadd 916]

USA Hockey is more about collecting fees to support their high level teams than anything else.

[TeamHonda401 54]

I'm with you on the point that they should lower the age at which checking is allowed. As long as people involved in youth hockey aren't taking concussions and hits seriously, we're in trouble.

"Yea lets make the kids wait till they are bigger and stronger before we let them start hitting. Thay way they will get less concussions."

Anyone that thinks that makes any sense at all shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a hockey rink.

[Chadd 916]

I'm with you on the point that they should lower the age at which checking is allowed. As long as people involved in youth hockey aren't taking concussions and hits seriously, we're in trouble.

"Yea lets make the kids wait till they are bigger and stronger before we let them start hitting. Thay way they will get less concussions."

Anyone that thinks that makes any sense at all shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a hockey rink.

They know they can't get coaches to teach the right way to check. Kids see the way NHL players hit and they all want to lay someone out, not make a play on the puck. Add the coaches that preach intimidation and you get the situation we're in now.

[TeamHonda401 54]

They know they can't get coaches to teach the right way to check. Kids see the way NHL players hit and they all want to lay someone out, not make a play on the puck. Add the coaches that preach intimidation and you get the situation we're in now.

I'm afraid of what's it's going to take to get the message through. We've seen some absolutely horrible things on the ice over a long period of time, and everyone is just skirting around the issue, saying it's part of the game. I'd hate to say it, but the only thing that hasn't happened that would wake everyone up would be for a player to die on the ice from a hit to the head. I'd hate for it to happen, but I don't see any other way it's going to change.

[mfd1068 0]

I really think the issue of concussions is caused by the use of full face cage or full visor. There is no respect for the head at all. Sticks are carried higher because getting cut with a full face just does not happen. I'm older, played in an era when hitting was allowed the moment you hit the ice, squirt,tyke whatever. I played right to major junior. There was a code of respect for your head and facial area because nobody wanted to get injured like that. I've been laid out like Lindros and flatten people like Stevens. You didn't pound the smaller guys but played hard. I went to a couple of my nephew's bantam A games this year. What a joke,they were basically running around trying to paste each other. Very poor hockey. Head shots all over cause, guess what, nobody gets marked with a cage.

I'm not for a second suggesting minor hockey players abandon full face protection. I just feel the cage has created this bigger issue of concussions due to the head being a target. Waiting till 13yrs old to start hitting is not the answer.

I dont have an answer on how to reduce head injuries. All I know is I played high level hockey a long time and still play. All my buddies did the same, no concussions ( that we know of..lol) stitches,cuts and bruises yes,but nobody went out intentionally and clubbed someone in the head with the regularity it happens now.

Here's an article from the Toronto Sun http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/04/10/17940591.html

[Chadd 916]

I really think the issue of concussions is caused by the use of full face cage or full visor.

No, it comes from coaches teaching people to "hit" instead of "check" and referees not calling penalties when the hits are up high. Everyone goes for the punishing hit instead of checking to take the puck away. It takes more skill to worry about the puck, where anyone can be taught how to hit hard.

[Axxion89 32]

Why not add more penalties for high hits. Make it strict like a game misconduct and bench minor or something to that effect. Why not add a suspension with that. I feel like doing something like that will change the game a lot more for the better for concussions resulting from high/headshot hits

[Chadd 916]

Why not add more penalties for high hits. Make it strict like a game misconduct and bench minor or something to that effect. Why not add a suspension with that. I feel like doing something like that will change the game a lot more for the better for concussions resulting from high/headshot hits

Referees don't call the rules in the book, adding more isn't going to fix that.

[Thinkingjack 51]

Checking should be allowed, but to an extent, teaching kids a few years ago and seeing them go from one level to the next allowing checking and they are running rampant dont know how to properly check but just throwing their weight doing it dangerously, if they have actual checking clinics at least do proper teaching, sheesh even the sharks tv did it right by having kyle mclaren a few years ago show all different checks it wasnt like a how to but a display and that looked more helpful than the crappy usa hockey clinics i see, like those crappy usa hockey referee clinics, a guy throws a puck accross the ice and you chase it and bring it back full speed for a faceoff....really?

[mfd1068 0]

No, it comes from coaches teaching people to "hit" instead of "check" and referees not calling penalties when the hits are up high. Everyone goes for the punishing hit instead of checking to take the puck away. It takes more skill to worry about the puck, where anyone can be taught how to hit hard.

No, not anyone can be taught to hit hard. It takes great balance, good skating ability and core strength to hit hard. Worry about the puck? Who worries about the puck...lol

[DarkStar50 679]

I wonder how many guys that have posted in this thread have children of their own, not nephews or nieces, that play checking hockey at the peewee and bantam level, that have gotten a concussion? What happens when it is your kid that can't concentrate in school anymore due to a concussion from playing hockey? What happens when your kid says he no longer wants to play hockey because physically he cannot after getting a concussion? This issue isn't just about learning how to check, referees who don't call penalties, coaches that encourage intimidation as a game strategy. This issue is about children and their health playing hockey at the youth recreational level.

[hunterphfr 12]

I grew up in Canada and I coach the defense on my son's squirt team. My son is pretty tall and solid for a 10 year old. He is playing both squirt and Peewee in spring hockey (allowed here in Florida) and moves up to Peewee this fall. I have been following this issue very closely since USA Hockey first announced it was considering the change. Ironically two of the big supporters of the proposed rule change are Al McInnis and Mike Milburry (who's kid isn't very big I guess). The Alberta and Ontario experiment lowered the age of checking down a division from Peewee but was halted after a trial period.

USA Hockey's proposed change is based on several conclusions. They feel Peewee kids are too focused on checking or avoiding being checked and not the skill aspects of the game. They think focusing on skating and stick handling at the Peewee level without checking will improve the caliber of hockey players. They use as justification the higher checking ages in european leagues. That 11 and 12 year old kids are too small to absorb a hit. That many kids leave hockey when checking becomes legal($$$ out of USA Hockeys pockets). That encouraging coaches to teach checking in Peewee practice and banning it in games will allow the kids two extra years to prepare and practice checking in controlled non-game situations. Obviously the current attention focused on head injuries is another concern.

As a coach and a parent I have several concerns with USA Hockeys decision. Size would be my first concern. Between my son, my daughter and myself I am at our local rink about five days a week. the discrepency between some 14 and 13 year old kids can be quite drastic. How can USA Hockey expect coaches to spend time at practices over two years teaching a skill that kids will not be able to use in game situations. I think the rule change is going to put some players in grave danger. What you are going to have are 13 year old kids who have spent around 8 years learning to cut through the neutral zone looking down at the puck on their stick as they do some sick dangling. We constantly remind players over and over to not look down at the puck and to keep their heads up. Some do but most have a tendency to look down, their biggest concern is losing the puck. Some 6' tall 180lb 14 year old is going to line them up and the ending is going to be catastrophic. If the higher checking ages result in a better caliber of hockey then why are Canada and the US two of the most dominant forces in International hockey over the last decade? What happens at the Peewee level in tournaments (like Silver Sticks) when you have Canadian and American teams present? What happens at the Bantam level at those same Tournaments when Canadian players are in their 3rd or 4th year of checking and our American kids are just learning how to give and absorb a hit?

My understanding is that the decision has already been made by the powers that be and the upcoming June vote is merely a formality.

[DarkStar50 679]

Our rink just finished hosting USA Hockey National Championships for Peewee and Bantam AAA for the second time in the last four years. There were greater size differences among the peewees than the bantams. This is what USA Hockey is recognizing. How often does the Squirt Major AAA superstar fail to make the Peewee Minor AAA team at tryouts(just completed in our Atlantic district), because Sammy Superstar is a smurf and the coaches know he will get destroyed in his first year of checking at the Peewee AAA level? The vast majority of youth hockey players will play checking hockey between the ages of 11(peewee)(as it stands now) to Midget age 16. How many truly continue in under 18 or Junior? Once those years(4,5, 6?) are completed most will play hockey, if they want to continue after 18, in an adult NON-Checking hockey league! Why put so many at risk for such a period of time? How small is the percentage that move up to college hockey in the big picture? One half of one percent? I understand this a game changing decision. However, sometimes the big picture is the one that needs to be looked at. The long term implications of the sport under the rules as now played. Hockey has evolved a lot in the last decade. Does anyone think the rules shouldn't evolve with the game? Now, if you believe the answer is no, then the NHL will gladly accept your resume for review.

[nicksmission14 0]

They know they can't get coaches to teach the right way to check. Kids see the way NHL players hit and they all want to lay someone out, not make a play on the puck. Add the coaches that preach intimidation and you get the situation we're in now.

100% Truth. Been saying this for years now to people.

[nicksmission14 0]

Our rink just finished hosting USA Hockey National Championships for Peewee and Bantam AAA for the second time in the last four years. There were greater size differences among the peewees than the bantams. This is what USA Hockey is recognizing. How often does the Squirt Major AAA superstar fail to make the Peewee Minor AAA team at tryouts(just completed in our Atlantic district), because Sammy Superstar is a smurf and the coaches know he will get destroyed in his first year of checking at the Peewee AAA level? The vast majority of youth hockey players will play checking hockey between the ages of 11(peewee)(as it stands now) to Midget age 16. How many truly continue in under 18 or Junior? Once those years(4,5, 6?) are completed most will play hockey, if they want to continue after 18, in an adult NON-Checking hockey league! Why put so many at risk for such a period of time? How small is the percentage that move up to college hockey in the big picture? One half of one percent? I understand this a game changing decision. However, sometimes the big picture is the one that needs to be looked at. The long term implications of the sport under the rules as now played. Hockey has evolved a lot in the last decade. Does anyone think the rules shouldn't evolve with the game? Now, if you believe the answer is no, then the NHL will gladly accept your resume for review.

So true. Great post.

When I worked for the local twin rinks here in CT, I was pretty disgusted at some of the coaches mentalities they were teaching players at a young age. A lot of strategy didn't involve playing better, being the best player you can be and playing discipline hockey, I can tell you that much.

[chippa13 1844]

No, not anyone can be taught to hit hard. It takes great balance, good skating ability and core strength to hit hard. Worry about the puck? Who worries about the puck...lol

All hitting hard takes is a good head of steam, hands up, a little forward lean, and a willingness to take yourself out of the play. Hitting hard and not taking yourself out of the play at the same time, now that is not something anyone can be taught.

[goblue9280 33]

I think the decision to move checking to Bantams has more to do with the $'s than with safety. USAHockey has stated that they lose the largest number of kids at the peewee level... so their thought process here is that one of the largest factors as to why kids give up the sport at that age is due to checking.

I'm with Chadd, the solution isn't moving the checking age around, but teaching kids (and coaches/parents) the proper way (and reason) to check... that and making sure that refs are properly enforcing the rules regarding illegal hits.

[raganblink 82]

They do need to change the rules imo to be more severe.

2 and a 10? Big deal.4 and a game? Or 4 and two 10s? Something where you miss a large if not the rest of the game.

Personally I'd also like to see double minor for check hit to head instead of 2.

[ndlancer95 0]

So true. Great post.

When I worked for the local twin rinks here in CT, I was pretty disgusted at some of the coaches mentalities they were teaching players at a young age. A lot of strategy didn't involve playing better, being the best player you can be and playing discipline hockey, I can tell you that much.

I can assume you're talking about greater Bridgeport? I played with that goon-squad, wrong minded organization for 3 years then went to Southern CT Stars. there, the coaches were more about team play, and making your teammates the best they can. hitting wasn't stressed as a nessecary tactic until bantams, where many kids were pulled up to play for their High School teams.

[mnpucker 33]

So true. Great post.

When I worked for the local twin rinks here in CT, I was pretty disgusted at some of the coaches mentalities they were teaching players at a young age. A lot of strategy didn't involve playing better, being the best player you can be and playing discipline hockey, I can tell you that much.

This topic can go in many ways but when you say "coaches" you lump Many, many, many good coaches in with bad ones. I coach, I think I do a good job. The tone of the coaching I heard in the OTL piece shocked the hell out of me. "you are playing like a bunch of pussies!" wow. So let me tell you what I know to be true......Coaches far too often take all the heat on this subject.

There are far more BAD PARENTS contributing to this problem than bad coaches. This year I stood next to a parent after a lopsided victory for our team, he told his oversized sone that he was, "quite frankly really disappointed you did not blow some kids up in the third, I mean ya gotta get your money's worth don't you?" Implying that because the game was out of reach he should go take runs at kids. I told him his son did what we asked of him. The same kid took numerous checking from behind penalties and was ejected from 3 games for too many penalties. We limited ice time and did everything we could to stop it.....never helped. Dad was in the car urging the poor kid to go mug it up. Happens time and time again..

Don Lucia may be struggling as a head coach for the University of Minnesota but he once mentioned that he woud rather coach a team from an orphanage.....no parents. (Now I am contradicting myself, I know there are good an bad parents as it relates to this subject)

[DarkStar50 679]

I agree that you have touched on an important piece in this matter. There are so many influences in this checking issue from good to bad coaches, good to bad parents, good to bad referees, and even good to bad players! So, to truly get this situation resolved in order to make everyone happy is simply impossible. The most difficult thing to change in hockey is the culture. Good luck with that!

[mnpucker 33]

I agree that you have touched on an important piece in this matter. There are so many influences in this checking issue from good to bad coaches, good to bad parents, good to bad referees, and even good to bad players! So, to truly get this situation resolved in order to make everyone happy is simply impossible. The most difficult thing to change in hockey is the culture. Good luck with that!

Completely agree.

[frankie56 0]

I'm going right from this thread to the beer league assault thread.