View Single Post
05-09-2013, 03:01 PM
Registered User
Slats432's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
So why not afford people the choice?
They do have the choice right now. Due to exposure, and when the decision gets made (When your kid is 4-5 years old and you put them in hockey, you pick an association, and move forward with it. I didn't have to consider hitting until after 4 years of hockey. I think it is based on how well organized hockey is in Canada from the standard association stand point. Recreational no hit hockey is also non competitive.

You may want your child to be competitive, but not in contact until later.

I dont think we need a "study" to tell us that concussions and/or "brain injuries" are happening at later stages of hockey development. Not a difficult question really, but one people dont seem to want to address. Why expose anyone to brain injury?
The data collected suggests that the age group of 11-12 is more susceptible to brain injury. I think that might be partly due to skill development as well. Players that are better skaters, puck handlers would be less likely to be in prone positions.

There are lots of adult leagues (unpaid) that have full contact. Senior AAA and AA for example. Im pretty sure some beer leagues have contact as well. And really, what does getting paid have to do with it? We are talking about a persons health, regardless of age. Isnt that something that should be a priority?
I have never seen a contact beer league. Senior hockey is made out of elite level players, if you want to suggest that senior hockey doesn't need hitting, I could not care less, I have never seen a Senior AAA game and never expect to. Mostly, the rule change is to protect children who are put in situations that may or may not have any affinity for body checking. I coached Peewee this year, and know for sure over half of our team didn't body check, and only 3-4 players body checked regularly.

That said, I wouldn't have made the rule as it is today. I would have made the distinction by skill level and not age.

One other point, I played Junior B hockey and loved to body check. I wouldn't have changed my own personal hockey experience either. My thought is the lower level kids that are the most likely to get injured should be the ones that get protected by the new rule, which is why I endorse the change....even though I would have done it differently.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote