When should body checking start?

[Shayzam 0]

Recently Hockey Canada has instituted a widespread banning of bodychecking until the bantam age (13-14) year olds. All provinces except Saskatchewan, my own, voted for this action. I'm just looking for your guys' input on the rule.

Personally I believe bantam age is too old to be bringing in hitting, size discrepancy, speed and the compete level/ demeanor of all lead to a situation where I see more injuries resulting from kids not knowing how to give/ take a hit. An outrageous situation to imagine is kids being involved in the bantam draft (major junior) will now not be able to be judged on their full game and skill set and if they are picked up will not be ready to physically play major junior hockey. I feel pee-wee (11-12) is the prime age to start body contact; skating abilities and skill sets have developed, their are not as many children with man builds and if you start younger kids may see hitting as a tool rather than the purpose of the game. To me I feel as hitting in hockey is comparable to punching in boxing, it's just part of the game.

[Capt.Hook 23]

They already did the exact same thing here in the U.S. through USA hockey. I think it's a mistake too but I know they were saying something about brain development at the pee wee level being at a stage where a lot of concussions and damage occur and that it would be better to put it off to Bantams.

My personal belief is that it's just two more years to develop "head down" habits and as much as they want to talk about coaching "body contact" at the lower levels it still remains sketchy to me exactly what that means and how refs call it. It also seems that the only thing that really makes kids listen is knowing that the check is coming.

I know many will probably disagree with me, but I still think it is a big mistake and am really glad that my son got through the system while Pee Wee's was the age when they started checking. It has made him a very heads up player which is good because he still hasn't hit his growth spurt.

Again, I think it gives two more years for kids to "mow lawn" which makes the habits that much harder to break and I would think would lead to bigger hits and injuries but only time will tell.

I totally agree with you!

[chippa13 1844]

It is also two more years to develop balance and skating ability which make taking and giving hits safer.

[MN old and slow 92]

start at 14 stop at 30 start back up at 75, in my 50s need a break from it for a short while

[Chadd 916]

They should spend more time and effort teaching the proper way to check and penalizing the current method of trying to incapacitate someone every time you hit.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

They should spend more time and effort teaching the proper way to check and penalizing the current method of trying to incapacitate someone every time you hit.

Thank you!! USA Hockey has this rule in practice for a couple years and kids still can't hit. Coaches never take time out in practice to show kids how to check. Or have a ref come and speak to the team about he/she will or will not call when a body check is applied. Age isn't the problem. It's lack of technique across the board.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

They should spend more time and effort teaching the proper way to check and penalizing the current method of trying to incapacitate someone every time you hit.

Chadd, this really urks me up here as in the information that was handed out was a guidline to teach how to check and have clinics on how to do so while the kids go into hitting. It will still be taught to teams just not allowed in games.

I keep hearing that guys cant hit and they loose and it ruins them....well All I have to say to that is last time I checked USA hockey is doing pretty damn good with the U18 and U16 teams they have and they havent learned to check till that age?? Crosby never had checking till Major Jr.........so I am at a loss how it will hurt little johnny and save his brain a little longer and really find out if he is that elite of a player. (As mentioned in other threads my son is one of the big guys out weighs his opponents by 20 lbs or moe in most cases hes just a big thick tall kid) So I am the parent that will have his kid called a goon. He loves to hit guys buts hes 9. I am all all for teaching him how to skate and shoot because if the day comes he can make a JR team or more he will already have the size to hit hes gone to hitting clinics and now were working on skating and shooting. He will be prepared when that day comes.

But for the most part....he has fun because if he does nothing with hockey we want to make sure he has a blast playing it!

[RadioGaGa 162]

Since almost 99% of the kids playing hockey in North America are not going to go on to any significant level of pro/amateur hockey where hitting is going to be an integral part of tht game, why the rush to have them hitting at 10-12?

If there is going to be body "contact" but not "checking" I would think it's more important to learn proper technique along the boards, and how to take a hit (even if there is not hitting in games) and as someone said, when balance and skating are better and full hitting is introduced, everyone will be better equipped to both give/receive a safe/hard check to separates the player from the puck...not the head from the player.

[zebra_steve 11]

As a dad, former player, a coach, and a referee I have a pretty strong opinion on this one.... I agree with the decision to move checking age to Bantam - or even midget. NOTE IT IS "CHECKING", NOT " HITTING" (capitalization for emphasis). Now that said, we should be teaching proper body contact starting at the mite level. We should be teaching how to check, receive a check, and the real PURPOSE of a CHECK starting at Squirts..... The videos that we use in our officiating seminars are out there for the coaches to utilize. That doesn't mean that the zebras on your game have a clue about what is or is not a check vs body contact. And even very good senior officials have trouble with those type calls vs managing the midget games were too often it ends up being what degree of violence the official is willing to accept as a check - ie: now it's hitting....

OTG - on my skate thread you mentioned that you were involved in U19 National level Girls.... What does that game look like considering that the girls never were allowed to check, but they are allowed to make significant body contact.... Transfer that amount of contact over to the boys side, say U18, and what would the game look like..... I noted a pretty good jump in the skill and speed of the games the year after USA Hockey cracked down on the obstruction stuff (But Alas they, and by extension my brother zebras, have backed way off that standard and it has slowed and mucked things up again).

\\getting on my soap box here\\

The bigger issue as I see it is that there really are too few coaches out there that can teach contact, checking, stick handling, and skating techniques. I see far too many "coaches" that have never played the game, let alone been taught anything properly..... I've taught "Learn to Play Hockey" lessons where a prerequisite of signups was achieving the Delta ISI level which (IRRC) is proficiency in forwards, backwards, crossunders, and basic stopping.The requirement was ignored\never checked and Kids were literally getting ice under their feet for the first time at their first session. Rather than turn them away we expanded the curriculum and decided to teach basic skating for 6 weeks (or until they were proficient enough to be moved to a more skilled group) before we could even think to start working any hockey skills. We are also so focused on doing everything on the ice that many teams\coaches\organizations fail to even try to utilize dry land training and chalk talks....

\\ I've hijacked this thread enough.... back to the discussion on rattling the glass\\

[McDugan 89]

I agree with so much of Zebra Steve's post, especially the very important distinction between checking and hitting. That is everything.

So much press goes to fighting and if/when/how it will be removed from the game. I think the phenomenon of "hitting" is much more toxic and insidious. When did "hitting" become part of the vocabulary, anyway? I don't remember it from when I was a kid, now it's everywhere. The stat people are tracking "hits" and the announcers and commentators hype it up so much. Sometimes for me it makes it hard to watch broadcasts; there's so much focus on hits, you'd think they counted for points or something.

[chk hrd 164]

I agree with Zebra Steve. The most important thing is teaching it correctly. There are far to many coaches that have never played contact and don't know the right way to teach, they just let the kids go out and hammer each other. I have always thought it was better to teach them contact at a younger age when there is less speed and size involved. By the Pee Wee level most kids have figured out if they want to play competative contact hockey or rec league. The poor kid who is playing contact but is afraid to check or be checked is usually being pushed by a parent. The game needs to educate people that it is checking not hitting, you are trying to seperate the player from the puck and not seperate thier head from thier body. There is nothing wrong with a clean open ice hit but not every hit needs to steamroll the other player. You also have to teach how to take a hit and awareness of thier surroundings. Alot of kids get hurt just by not placing themselves in a good position for a check. We had a great example of this in mens league. My kid is about 5'-9" 160, one of our last games a guy on the other team who is about 6'-1 220 took a run at him. Because my kid is aware he saw the charge coming and got on the boards to absorb the hit that was from behind. He took what could have been really ugly and minimized it because he had been taught correctly.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

It is all about the education and I know that USA hockey as well as HC are looking into developing a much needed improved checking program to be taught as mentioned all the way up.

As for the girls the problem (actually discussed today) is that a lot were never taught and the ones that were know how to do it properly and well. That being said the better skaters that were never taught take those checks as dirty and go back after the good players with blind side cheap hits. Even in the NCAA ou wills see some brutal hits because some think its "cool" to take someones head off and not from a clean hit.

There are a few players up here that are well noted for their dirty hits and have not been asked to play at Uni because of it. That and the mark are not where they need to be. There was a girl a few years back that would be one of the top 3 on almost any team but never got over 70"s in school so nobody would take her that and she was a very dirty player she was a great kid outside I know her very well just had really bad coaches that allowed he dirty play and didn't make sure she was doing better at school. (Parents didn't help either) .

[Jordan 13]

I have a number of thoughts on the topic, feel free to agree or disagree. This is a very personal issue for most of us.

I have seen my son play in very dirty and dangerous non-contact games, and play in safe, well controlled contact games. In fact, he suffered his worst injury, a fairly serious concussion in a non-contact game. It was a dangerous crosscheck from behind, driving him head first into the boards. No penalty was called. There can be serious consequences when a player expects that the other player won't hit. You simply can't have rules that stop stupid.

1) I agree with the need for proper teaching/coaching. I also think that proper respect on the ice must be demanded as a code of behaviour from the coaches. Truthfully, I have not seen much of this.

2) There is a gigantic range in the skill set of the referees. Well refereed games are safe. Poorly refereed games are a dangerous gong show. Referee education and training needs to improve also.

3) Saskatchewan has a program that specifically addresses how coaches teach checking. They had years where they had lower injury rates with hitting than Alberta without hitting (at the time the two provinces began hitting at different ages)

4) My own thoughts are that they should leave hitting in at the highest level (AAA) and take it out or start later in the lower divisions

5) Though it's true that USA hockey is doing fine without hitting until later, all of the top US rep teams constantly come to Canada for hitting tournaments. Go to any elite tournament in Toronto and you will see Little Ceasars, Honeybaked Ham, the Chicago Mission, The LA JR Kings, the St Louis JR Blues, Pittsburgh JR Penguins, Victory Honda, Boston JR Bruins, Buffalo Regals etc.

Funny, that the roughest (and dirtiest) teams my son has played against are US teams, including one coached by a former NHL'er. That particular US team is actually going to play in a Canadian league next season

Hockey Canada has made it a bit of a nightmare for the 2001 age group. They hit last season, won't hit this season. Then they will start hitting again the following season. The biggest bulge in the injury stats occur in the first year of hitting. This group will go through it twice. They should have grandfathered it for this age group.

My son hit in lacrosse since he was 7, no problems. They were all about the same size and learned to expect the contact. I'm fairly certain that they will never remove contact from lax.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

I go back to the Head Games video and the brain development at the younger age's and the amount of concussions and issues I have suffered. I say leave it out and start training as the provinces have done above and use there model. It could be possible to introduce it earlier when coaches have learned to train it properly,

but they dont so why put our kids in harms way of some guy telling Johnny to go cream that kid.......My 2 cents.

[zebra_steve 11]

For those in USA Hockey... Wait til the new rules changes are announced........ Panties will be wadded up into an atomic wedgie for some folks if what I was told was actually passed. I have yet to confirm what I was told...

Here's the list of proposals... the ones that are marked "approved" were voted on in the recent meetings in Colorado.

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/USAHockey/Menu_Officials/Menu_RulesEquipment/2013-17%20Playing%20Rule%20Change%20Proposals.pdf

[hunterphfr 12]

That sound you heard was my heart sinking.

Guess what I'm spending the next 2 hours reading.

[Chadd 916]

Wow, I just did the Evelyn Wood (speed reading) buzz through that PDF and it's going to be interesting. I can already tell you that it is not going to go over well with officials at all around here. Most of them still don't call the "new standards" from the last major change.

[zebra_steve 11]

NOTE _ THE LINK I POSTED IS WHAT WAS VOTED ON IN DECEMBER TO PUT OUT FOR A VOTE THIS PAST WEEK. I AM NOT SURE AT THIS POINT WHAT ALL WAS APPROVED AT THE MEETING, but I was told that most of the votes were quick and uneventful approvals with several proposals that were not approved are under further review.

I was told the 2+10 and 5+game wording was approved as was the multiple misconducts = game and the coaches being responsible for their teams or face suspensions were approved. Now I'll wait until the official announcements...

Chad, I hear ya..... I had trouble getting guys to call boarding, head contact, and stand alone majors for game management when maybe the game misc was too excessive but the minor was not strong enough, or dime kids that stand there and mother F@@K them at the top of their lungs....

Gonna be interesting for sure.....

[Chadd 916]

NOTE _ THE LINK I POSTED IS WHAT WAS VOTED ON IN DECEMBER TO PUT OUT FOR A VOTE THIS PAST WEEK. I AM NOT SURE AT THIS POINT WHAT ALL WAS APPROVED AT THE MEETING, but I was told that most of the votes were quick and uneventful approvals with several proposals that were not approved are under further review.

I was told the 2+10 and 5+game wording was approved as was the multiple misconducts = game and the coaches being responsible for their teams or face suspensions were approved. Now I'll wait until the official announcements...

Chad, I hear ya..... I had trouble getting guys to call boarding, head contact, and stand alone majors for game management when maybe the game misc was too excessive but the minor was not strong enough, or dime kids that stand there and mother F@@K them at the top of their lungs....

Gonna be interesting for sure.....

Guys here will give a 2 for boarding instead of a the 2+10 or 5+game for a check from behind. Head contact? "That's why they wear helmets and cages".

[zebra_steve 11]

Unfortunately I gotta believe that those same guys are gonna be giving 2 for roughing now since a board will now be 2+10...(proposal 48B)... going to be a lot of roughing calls made instead of boarding. Same way we saw guys call 2 for boarding cuz they wouldn't call a check from behind.

Then you have 48A (eliminates the minor and starts with a major) - DEFEAT BY 9-4 VOTE – DEFER TO PILOT DATA FROM MINNESOTA HOCKEY AT END OF SEASON Committee Rationale: Committee prefers Proposal 48B, but retains the right for further review based on data collected in Minnesota.

[bnr032 11]

i think that earlier the better.. keeps them playing with there heads up. But it needs to be taught properly.

On a side note - Currently the rink i am playing at , there is no contact hockey at all, no kids, no teens, not even adults.(politics etc)

To me its not proper hockey. but its all i have...

Makes you wonder why Australia isnt producing any better level players.

[Jordan 13]

I don't disagree with taking the hitting out, just don.t think it is a panacea. Teaching respect and the proper way to play is still extremely important, as is improved refereeing.

As I mentioned the dirtiest hit my kid ever took (receiving a concussion) was in a non-contact game.

[Shayzam 0]

Unfortunately I gotta believe that those same guys are gonna be giving 2 for roughing now since a board will now be 2+10...(proposal 48B)... going to be a lot of roughing calls made instead of boarding. Same way we saw guys call 2 for boarding cuz they wouldn't call a check from behind.

Then you have 48A (eliminates the minor and starts with a major) - DEFEAT BY 9-4 VOTE – DEFER TO PILOT DATA FROM MINNESOTA HOCKEY AT END OF SEASON Committee Rationale: Committee prefers Proposal 48B, but retains the right for further review based on data collected in Minnesota.

The best rule I've seen put in was actually the minimization of the checking to the head penalty before a 2+10 to a head contact penalty 4 minutes for intentional contact including punches and 2 for unintentional contact/less violent contact, while still instituting suspensions for especially violent/ injury resultant hits. It's caused a happy medium of the penalty being appropriately called with appropriate and fair punishment. Personally i have seen a dramatic drop in head shots unnecessarily violent hits and guys trying to kill guys.

As far as the 10+2 for boarding i find this ridiculous. Pretty close to all the serious hockey injuries i have seen have resulted from a board, but currently violent boards are called as hitting from behinds and game ejections. It's not fair to bring in the boarding rule because players often put themselves in vulnerable positions and like hitting from behind I believe i believe to frequent calling of the penalty sets players to learn to use the vulnerable position for puck protection against other players as the rule protects in some circumstances from getting hit. Yes I believe boarding is awful and violent boards should result in a 10+2 however i see a large mass of yo-yo officials handing out 10+2's to undeserving players upon light contact boards.

[Chadd 916]

The best rule I've seen put in was actually the minimization of the checking to the head penalty before a 2+10 to a head contact penalty 4 minutes for intentional contact including punches and 2 for unintentional contact/less violent contact, while still instituting suspensions for especially violent/ injury resultant hits. It's caused a happy medium of the penalty being appropriately called with appropriate and fair punishment. Personally i have seen a dramatic drop in head shots unnecessarily violent hits and guys trying to kill guys.

As far as the 10+2 for boarding i find this ridiculous. Pretty close to all the serious hockey injuries i have seen have resulted from a board, but currently violent boards are called as hitting from behinds and game ejections. It's not fair to bring in the boarding rule because players often put themselves in vulnerable positions and like hitting from behind I believe i believe to frequent calling of the penalty sets players to learn to use the vulnerable position for puck protection against other players as the rule protects in some circumstances from getting hit. Yes I believe boarding is awful and violent boards should result in a 10+2 however i see a large mass of yo-yo officials handing out 10+2's to undeserving players upon light contact boards.

The point is to condition players to stop or reduce boarding. "Light contact boarding" is supposed to be a 2+10, that's why they set it as the new minimum. "Violent boarding" is now a 5+game. you have to adjust your perception to the new reality of the rule.

[mlobitz 0]

New guy here... We have had this rule in practice now in Minnesota for a little while and I think it is making a difference. It's important to note that checking is still taught and practiced before bantams, it is just not allowed in games. I think it is also important to note that contact is allowed as long as the player is making a play on the puck. If you check out USA Hockey's website (maybe it was Minnesota Hockey?) there are some good videos showing acceptable contact. The contact they show could be described as checking quite easily since it actually meets the intent of checking in most instances. The players are making body contact in an effort to gain possession of the puck. What they have gone away from is little Johnny running a kid who no longer has the puck or running the kid and not making a play for the puck.

As explained to me during CEP classes, the rule change was made to allow for player development in all areas, including checking. I think that this has translated well to the ice and kids are improving their skills instead of looking for that big hit. The games are faster and higher quality, and the kids are better prepared for contact by the time they start. And, since they are now practicing hitting for a couple of years before taking it to the game, they are giving safer, cleaner hits... Just my opinion.