HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ot:hockey alberta eliminates body checking in peewee division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2013, 01:37 PM
  #26
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
How is taking something away allow them to gradually get comfortable?
you missed my earlier post about checking clinics in peewee, having designated practices in peeww involving checking and scrimmages to ease them into checking before they're tossed on the ice in tryouts with bigger, faster second year Bantam players who have a full season of contact under their belt.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:38 PM
  #27
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 500
In trying to understand the introduce it earlier argument.

1. There's no doubt concussion incidents rise as soon as body checking is introduced into the game. The stats are out there.

http://biac-aclc.ca/2010/06/10/bodyc...-minor-hockey/

If we introduce it earlier we'll rely on the fact the kids are smaller so they won't be able to give each other as many concussions. go go laws of momentum.

This way when the kids are bigger. They'll be practiced enough not to concuss each other or to defend themselves from concussions.

If we apply that logic there should be a noticeable higher rate of concussions among bantam and midget aged players in provinces that bar hitting in peewee. I think Quebec is the other province now after doing some reading.

Would be interesting to see the data. Would also like to see how concussions effect children depending on age. Is a mild head injury to a 14 year old the same as one to an 8 year old?

I'm no expert.. perhaps they're still trying to find this information out.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:40 PM
  #28
Thrill22
Feelin' it
 
Thrill22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 485
vCash: 500
My son is going into his first year of peewee, and is going to be chuffed at this - I'm in the better to teach it younger camp, the size/speed difference between kids is much more noticeable in Bantam.

Thrill22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:40 PM
  #29
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by randylahey View Post
I think a lot of people here are missing the boat on another huge reason this was done. Numbers of hockey players are dropping and a huge reason is safety. Parents don't like the hitting aspect. Now this gives the kids another 2 years of playing without hitting. In reality hitting should probably only be in the elite stream and make the rest no-hitting. That's my opinion at least
Once again, a non-expert regulatory body responds with a change that is not thought out and will likely cause negatives. They will refer to these as "unintended consequences" when in reality it reflects a lack of consideration.

Bifurcation of the rules would be simple and allow for players to learn the proper game earlier. If players/parents want a non-hitting game, give them that place, but punishing and handicapping the rest is completely inappropriate and unproductive.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:40 PM
  #30
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornKicker View Post
its a typical knee jerk reaction

kids are getting hurt - take it away form them for one more year...........

how about exposing the real cause to the problem, which is players turning their backs and skating with their heads down as well as the glorification of headhunting hits.

hockey is a contact sport, guys in mens league still get hurt, its a risk you take when you play. this decision is just deferring the risk to a higher age group that has more potential to injure someone.
kneed jerk reaction? to years of study by medical experts.

kids are getting hurt - take it away form them for one more year........... focus more on preparing them for checking.


hockey is a contact sport, guys in mens league still get hurt, its a risk you take when you play. this decision is just deferring the risk to a higher age group that has more potential to injure someone. This statement doesn't match the research.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:42 PM
  #31
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
In trying to understand the introduce it earlier argument.

1. There's no doubt concussion incidents rise as soon as body checking is introduced into the game. The stats are out there.

http://biac-aclc.ca/2010/06/10/bodyc...-minor-hockey/

If we introduce it earlier we'll rely on the fact the kids are smaller so they won't be able to give each other as many concussions. go go laws of momentum.

This way when the kids are bigger. They'll be practiced enough not to concuss each other or to defend themselves from concussions.

If we apply that logic there should be a noticeable higher rate of concussions among bantam and midget aged players in provinces that bar hitting in peewee. I think Quebec is the other province now after doing some reading.

Would be interesting to see the data. Would also like to see how concussions effect children depending on age. Is a mild head injury to a 14 year old the same as one to an 8 year old?

I'm no expert.. perhaps they're still trying to find this information out.
go to the hockey alberta website. They have Canadian Pediatric Study there ...

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:42 PM
  #32
Gunner8811
Registered User
 
Gunner8811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
you missed my earlier post about checking clinics in peewee, having designated practices in peeww involving checking and scrimmages to ease them into checking before they're tossed on the ice in tryouts with bigger, faster second year Bantam players who have a full season of contact under their belt.
Why not have the clinics and practices at the Atom level to get them ready for Pee Wee? This is a step back in my opinion. Worst case scenario for me would be to remove hitting at the Pee Wee level in house leagues but keep it in AA or AAA.

Gunner8811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:42 PM
  #33
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,560
vCash: 500
Sounds like a few people here without kids.

My son isn't elite, although trying out for Rep. I really don't see a problem with it, because kids get concussions in Peewee. Regularly.

In our first game this past season, one of our 2nd years gave two kids concussions on the other team, one out for the season.

One of our kids has had four concussions over two seasons. My son had a minor one as well. (Meaning that it only affected him for a day or two.)

The benefit, for me, is that kids should be stronger on their skates, better with the puck, and more agile to avoid the crushing checks.

Although, if I were making the decision, I would eliminate checking in lower divisions, and not categorize it by age. For Edmonton by example, I would allow hitting in Tier 4 and up starting in Peewee, or maybe bring it down to Atom.

I think the problem is having hockey players that lack the skill, agility and awareness to properly handle hitting.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:47 PM
  #34
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by randylahey View Post
I think a lot of people here are missing the boat on another huge reason this was done. Numbers of hockey players are dropping and a huge reason is safety. Parents don't like the hitting aspect. Now this gives the kids another 2 years of playing without hitting. In reality hitting should probably only be in the elite stream and make the rest no-hitting. That's my opinion at least
good point, but its not just the parents not liking it. Medical experts have the data supporting the incident rate and risk of concussions. Now the only thing that remains is the argument if you introduce it earlier will you reduce the number of concussions or increase? I think I'd side withthe medical experts over the redneck vac truck driver anyday.

I think Ontario has the Major/Minor system too. Since kids physical development is not uniform (ie 5'10" bantam players and 5'3" bantam players), Ontario has first years play first years and second play second.

ie AAA Minor peewee is all first years, AAA major peewee is second years.

This may help a little with the size differential, but you'll still get some kids that are much bigger.....

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:49 PM
  #35
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
FACT SHEET from Hockey Alberta Medical studies

What the research tells us today:
There is a 3-fold increased risk of injury in Peewee Hockey players in leagues where body checking is allowed compared to leagues where it is not allowed (AB data).

There is a 4 fold increase risk of concussion in Peewee Hockey players in leagues where body checking is allowed compared to leagues where it is not allowed (AB data).

Evidence is consistent in recognizing body checking as the single most consistent risk factor for concussion in youth ice hockey.

The vast majority of studies (16/18) examining the association between rules allowing body checking and injury risk, demonstrate a 2 to 4-fold increase of injury in leagues where body checking is allowed.

The rate of injury and concussion in Bantam players in Quebec and AB is the same. (NOTE Quebec doesn't have contact until Bantam).

The rate of concussion in Peewee hockey players where Body Checking is allowed (1.5 concussions per 1000 player game hours) is similar to the rate for players in the NHL (1.8 concussions per 1000 player game hours) and significantly higher than in older age groups (Bantam rate is 0.9 concussions per 1000 player game hour).

Entry into adolescence is a critical period in brain development (11-13 years).

The rate of concussion increases with increasing skill level of play with the highest risk at the most elite levels of play.


Last edited by Bobblehead: 05-08-2013 at 01:55 PM.
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:49 PM
  #36
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
Sounds like a few people here without kids.

My son isn't elite, although trying out for Rep. I really don't see a problem with it, because kids get concussions in Peewee. Regularly.

In our first game this past season, one of our 2nd years gave two kids concussions on the other team, one out for the season.

One of our kids has had four concussions over two seasons. My son had a minor one as well. (Meaning that it only affected him for a day or two.)
Slats, why do you think this is happening? It was nothing like this even as recently as when I was playing. More people leaving their feet? Refs letting games get out of control? Kids not protecting themselves near the boards?

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:51 PM
  #37
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner8811 View Post
Why not have the clinics and practices at the Atom level to get them ready for Pee Wee? This is a step back in my opinion. Worst case scenario for me would be to remove hitting at the Pee Wee level in house leagues but keep it in AA or AAA.
Their physiologically not ready for contact in Atom..... their neck muscles, their brain development are not ready to handle the collisions. Watch the documentaries on concussions. Read the studies. Avoid the Don Cherry reaction.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:54 PM
  #38
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
Slats, why do you think this is happening? It was nothing like this even as recently as when I was playing. More people leaving their feet? Refs letting games get out of control? Kids not protecting themselves near the boards?
better indentification of symptoms?

When I played, it was "you had your bell rung". You had some sniffing salts and were back on the ice. If the coach thought you were chicken in the games, he put you in the corner and lined up your teammates and 2 at a time ran you in the corner.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 01:57 PM
  #39
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
better indentification of symptoms?

When I played, it was "you had your bell rung". You had some sniffing salts and were back on the ice. If the coach thought you were chicken in the games, he put you in the corner and lined up your teammates and 2 at a time ran you in the corner.
Nope, didn't have this issue on our teams. If you were hurt, you were hurt. Smelling salts went out a long time ago. There is something different in the game if people are really getting this many concussions.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:05 PM
  #40
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
Nope, didn't have this issue on our teams. If you were hurt, you were hurt. Smelling salts went out a long time ago. There is something different in the game if people are really getting this many concussions.
My point was that we are better at identifying possible concussions. There' s more of an awareness too. Are there really more injuries than before? No one can know for sure. There is no data from minor hockey concussions in the 1980s and that data would be flawed. So one can't compare to what it was without that data.

I think the severity of the injuries has gone up and our awareness also. And yes the game has changed. Players are much bigger and much faster, yet the ice size stayed the same. Padding has gone from felt and foam to hard plastic. I can't say 100% for sure that those are the reasons and that incidents are up, but I'm pretty sure they are. Part of it is how the game and players have changed, part of it is our awareness and the diagnosis.

I don't think players leave their feet any more or less than before, but I really have no studies to back it up becuase I don't think that data will ever exist. Equipment, speed, size of players, more awareness and better diagnosis..... they all contribute in varying degrees....

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:08 PM
  #41
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
Sounds like a few people here without kids.

My son isn't elite, although trying out for Rep. I really don't see a problem with it, because kids get concussions in Peewee. Regularly.

In our first game this past season, one of our 2nd years gave two kids concussions on the other team, one out for the season.

One of our kids has had four concussions over two seasons. My son had a minor one as well. (Meaning that it only affected him for a day or two.)

The benefit, for me, is that kids should be stronger on their skates, better with the puck, and more agile to avoid the crushing checks.

Although, if I were making the decision, I would eliminate checking in lower divisions, and not categorize it by age. For Edmonton by example, I would allow hitting in Tier 4 and up starting in Peewee, or maybe bring it down to Atom.

I think the problem is having hockey players that lack the skill, agility and awareness to properly handle hitting.
First, I am a parent of a former minor hockey player. Also former executive, coach and timekeeper.

What I remember, once they hit Peewee they were either scared ****less of hitting were pumped up for it. Now in Bantam we will have the boys with hormones acting up. I had always been a proponent of keeping it in the game from the start, atom or novice. If they were going to keep it at Peewee they should have split the age group to Peewee Minor (11yrs) and Peewee Major (12yrs), this would keep the older kids away from the new kids to hitting.

Again, don't know why they don't push the non hit league more.

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:08 PM
  #42
topchowda
Registered User
 
topchowda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,430
vCash: 500
Stupid, teach them while they are all young and their bodies are small and their is less chance of concussions/injuries. In bantam the size difference is much larger. Players will not learn to keep their head up, and injuries will be worse

topchowda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:12 PM
  #43
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
My point was that we are better at identifying possible concussions. There' s more of an awareness too. Are there really more injuries than before? No one can know for sure. There is no data from minor hockey concussions in the 1980s and that data would be flawed. So one can't compare to what it was without that data.

I think the severity of the injuries has gone up and our awareness also. And yes the game has changed. Players are much bigger and much faster, yet the ice size stayed the same. Padding has gone from felt and foam to hard plastic. I can't say 100% for sure that those are the reasons and that incidents are up, but I'm pretty sure they are. Part of it is how the game and players have changed, part of it is our awareness and the diagnosis.

I don't think players leave their feet any more or less than before, but I really have no studies to back it up becuase I don't think that data will ever exist. Equipment, speed, size of players, more awareness and better diagnosis..... they all contribute in varying degrees....
I'm inclined to believe it is play along the boards. Even young NHLers now play with their backs to the play all the time. My generation of minor hockey players were the last group to be truly taught that you don't go into the corner this way. It results in a totally different danger zone near the boards and has fundamentally changed the game. Unfortunately it will only get worse until there's a major change to reverse the trend.

One positive is that there's less stick work now. This is abundantly obvious even playing in a rec league, as sub-30 teams will generally play an energetic, but mostly clean game while 40+ teams spend the entire game swinging sticks to compensate for their inability to bodycheck.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:14 PM
  #44
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
Stupid, teach them while they are all young and their bodies are small and their is less chance of concussions/injuries. In bantam the size difference is much larger. Players will not learn to keep their head up, and injuries will be worse
Actually, if you read the studies, the opposite is true. My original thinking was this as well, but once they pull out the studies results, it is an excellent thing for the sport.

ponokanocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:17 PM
  #45
Arpeggio
Registered User
 
Arpeggio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,345
vCash: 500
I'm all for anything that will keep the majority (those being kids who will never even come close to sniffing the pros) safer. Tier 7 12 year olds shouldn't be risking concussions.

I doubt it'll be a big deal for most players, bantam aged players are more likely to embrace contact anyway, and are more capable of learning how to do it properly.

Arpeggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:19 PM
  #46
randylahey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 59
vCash: 500
A couple of other facts people need to consider. Back when I played peewee, some odd 15 years ago perhaps, BC did not allow hitting in peewee. It seemed to work fine back then for them.

Also, consider that before the age change that went into effect for the 2002-2003 season that players in peewee were older than they are now. So relative to that, hitting is now only pushed back one year from when most of the people on this board would have played. Not a big deal really.

Hockey Alberta isn't only concerned about the kids and parents whose kids are destined for the NHL.

randylahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:21 PM
  #47
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,768
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
FACT SHEET from Hockey Alberta Medical studies

What the research tells us today:
There is a 3-fold increased risk of injury in Peewee Hockey players in leagues where body checking is allowed compared to leagues where it is not allowed (AB data).

There is a 4 fold increase risk of concussion in Peewee Hockey players in leagues where body checking is allowed compared to leagues where it is not allowed (AB data).

Evidence is consistent in recognizing body checking as the single most consistent risk factor for concussion in youth ice hockey.

The vast majority of studies (16/18) examining the association between rules allowing body checking and injury risk, demonstrate a 2 to 4-fold increase of injury in leagues where body checking is allowed.

The rate of injury and concussion in Bantam players in Quebec and AB is the same. (NOTE Quebec doesn't have contact until Bantam).

The rate of concussion in Peewee hockey players where Body Checking is allowed (1.5 concussions per 1000 player game hours) is similar to the rate for players in the NHL (1.8 concussions per 1000 player game hours) and significantly higher than in older age groups (Bantam rate is 0.9 concussions per 1000 player game hour).

Entry into adolescence is a critical period in brain development (11-13 years).

The rate of concussion increases with increasing skill level of play with the highest risk at the most elite levels of play.
I really don't see what any of this proves to be honest.

It's common sense that a league that has hitting would have more injuries.

Quebec doesn't allow hitting until Bantam, but injuries are the same as Alberta that does allow hitting earlier. So...

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:23 PM
  #48
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,768
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by randylahey View Post
A couple of other facts people need to consider. Back when I played peewee, some odd 15 years ago perhaps, BC did not allow hitting in peewee. It seemed to work fine back then for them.

Also, consider that before the age change that went into effect for the 2002-2003 season that players in peewee were older than they are now. So relative to that, hitting is now only pushed back one year from when most of the people on this board would have played. Not a big deal really.

Hockey Alberta isn't only concerned about the kids and parents whose kids are destined for the NHL.
If they are concerned about the majority, then take hitting out of all age groups except for the elite players.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:24 PM
  #49
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
I say this in all honesty and without sarcasm or anything.

Those following the train of the studies (not saying that's necessarily anyone here, but more the studiers and the groups pushing these initiatives) should be advocating for non-contact sport. It is more intellectually honest in terms of their purpose. To advocate for changes that aren't meant to be permanent but rather incremental, without acknowledging that end, is improper.

Once this question is answered, an honest debate with knowledge of the end games can take place.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:32 PM
  #50
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
11 and 12
Oh ok, I guess it's good for preventing injuries but no checking just seems excessive hockey is all about checking

402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.