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, 01:56 PM
  #51
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
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.
Lots of people here have kids. Me included. Just becauise we disagree with the decision doesnt mean their opinion or how they value their kids is any less than yours.
My kid has played "rep" hockey for basically his whole career of 8 years. The concussions are few & far between that I have seen. In my opinion this is simply an extension of the nanny state we are in. Its a contact sport. Stuff is going to happen. Just enforce the rules . Like, should football outlaw tackilng, play at the line?
Furthuremore most anybody who has ever watched bantam hockey would tell you with the massive size differential its about the worst time to institute checking. As well, kids at that age are just starting to be idiots, for lack of a better word.
I fuind it curious that Hockey Alberta absolutly ignored its constiuents (the parents) & its member orgaizations & did what it always wanted to do anyways. They could have taken a more thoughtful approach, such as :
1) making year specificc league as they do down east
2) excepting out rep hockey from the rule
3) expand the no hit leagues

Instead, they take the risk management approach. Its frankly ridiculous.

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:00 PM
  #52
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
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...
It pretty much invalidates the argument many posters have made that earlier introduction of body contact prevents injuries in later years?

Honestly as a parent I'm fine with my son hurting his leg, arm, etc. Those heal.
Head injuries are a whole different animal.

I have the feeling many years from now we will eliminate contact in all child sports once the we learn the true implications of multiple minor head trauma in children. We may look back like we do seat belt laws and go what the heck were we thinking.

Who knows maybe they'll make a concussion cure pill too.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:00 PM
  #53
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
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...
Exactly. Ive also read some of those studies. Its clear that they were done with a result in mind.

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:07 PM
  #54
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Lots of people here have kids. Me included. Just becauise we disagree with the decision doesnt mean their opinion or how they value their kids is any less than yours.
My kid has played "rep" hockey for basically his whole career of 8 years. The concussions are few & far between that I have seen. In my opinion this is simply an extension of the nanny state we are in. Its a contact sport. Stuff is going to happen. Just enforce the rules . Like, should football outlaw tackilng, play at the line?
Furthuremore most anybody who has ever watched bantam hockey would tell you with the massive size differential its about the worst time to institute checking. As well, kids at that age are just starting to be idiots, for lack of a better word.
I fuind it curious that Hockey Alberta absolutly ignored its constiuents (the parents) & its member orgaizations & did what it always wanted to do anyways. They could have taken a more thoughtful approach, such as :
1) making year specificc league as they do down east
2) excepting out rep hockey from the rule
3) expand the no hit leagues

Instead, they take the risk management approach. Its frankly ridiculous.

why is it worse?

Bantam kids that are entering "idiot" phase are less "Idiot's" when they start checking earlier? Are you suggesting they somehow mature and make better "Emotional" decisions on the ice because they learned to check earlier in life?

While one can argue a child learns how to take a hit earlier may be able to avoid them better when the stakes are larger. Can't the same argument apply that he's also more skilled at delivering an effective body check? (clean hits cause concussions too.)

This testosterone and puberty argument make no sense to me. Boys will get mad.. Boys will make bad decisions on the ice.

Is this whole argument based on some kind of assumption that skilled bodycheckers cause less concussions then less skilled?

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:17 PM
  #55
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Lots of people here have kids. Me included. Just becauise we disagree with the decision doesnt mean their opinion or how they value their kids is any less than yours.
My kid has played "rep" hockey for basically his whole career of 8 years. The concussions are few & far between that I have seen. In my opinion this is simply an extension of the nanny state we are in. Its a contact sport. Stuff is going to happen. Just enforce the rules . Like, should football outlaw tackilng, play at the line?
Furthuremore most anybody who has ever watched bantam hockey would tell you with the massive size differential its about the worst time to institute checking. As well, kids at that age are just starting to be idiots, for lack of a better word.
I fuind it curious that Hockey Alberta absolutly ignored its constiuents (the parents) & its member orgaizations & did what it always wanted to do anyways. They could have taken a more thoughtful approach, such as :
1) making year specificc league as they do down east
2) excepting out rep hockey from the rule
3) expand the no hit leagues

Instead, they take the risk management approach. Its frankly ridiculous.
I actually made the comment so people who do and don't could make the distinction so we could know where they are coming from.

I agree with everything you said. My thought is that it should be skill before age.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:20 PM
  #56
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,308
vCash: 98
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

Barry Willer he was the guy I was thinking of, that article really has nothing though other than his opinion. I'll try find the podcast.

"Personally, I think that would be a mistake," Willer said. "All you're doing is putting it [bodychecking]off and putting it off to an age where the players are bigger and stronger and have more testosterone. The injury rates will not only be higher, but I think more serious."

joestevens29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:22 PM
  #57
Oilception
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: St. Albert
Country: Canada
Posts: 832
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
why is it worse?

Bantam kids that are entering "idiot" phase are less "Idiot's" when they start checking earlier? Are you suggesting they somehow mature and make better "Emotional" decisions on the ice because they learned to check earlier in life?

While one can argue a child learns how to take a hit earlier may be able to avoid them better when the stakes are larger. Can't the same argument apply that he's also more skilled at delivering an effective body check? (clean hits cause concussions too.)

This testosterone and puberty argument make no sense to me. Boys will get mad.. Boys will make bad decisions on the ice.

Is this whole argument based on some kind of assumption that skilled bodycheckers cause less concussions then less skilled?
i think he means just at that age some kids might be more likely to hit to injure as opposed to peewee, and kids are better to defend when they have learned to take a hit before hand. i was 6 foot 3 and was heavier than most in my second year of bantam hockey, i guarantee those first year kids were happy they had learned to take some hits from smaller guys before i started hitting them

and clean hits causing injury are going to happen, injury can happen just by skating in a straight line and falling. if your that affraid of injuries, stay at home its a sport it might happen get used to it

Oilception is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:23 PM
  #58
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
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...
Exactly,you said hitting in PeeWee doesn't reduce the frequency of injuries in Bantam so what's the point of introducing hitting in PeeWee??

It doesn't "prove" anything.

The data "strongly supports" that there is no difference in injuries or concussions in Bantam, whether the kids had hitting in PeeWee or Bantam (Que vs AB). The rate was virtually the same. So the arguement that teaching them earlier (PeeWee) reduces injuries later in hockey (Bantam) is completely wrong.

It states that there are more injuries and concussions in PeeWee in leagues with contact (like you said "duh!").

So if it increases injuries and concussions in peeWee but doesn't reduce them in later years, what's the argument in support of hitting in PeeWee. There is none.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:25 PM
  #59
Q Continuum
You are Wrong
 
Q Continuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,014
vCash: 691
I'm in the "teach it earlier" camp.

I'd rather see kids hitting earlier when there is less size, speed, momentum and hormones involved. Now we'll see 14 year olds running wild on hormones hurting each other.

Q Continuum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:26 PM
  #60
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Lots of people here have kids. Me included. Just becauise we disagree with the decision doesnt mean their opinion or how they value their kids is any less than yours.
...

Instead, they take the risk management approach. Its frankly ridiculous.
You said it. My opinion is just as valid as yours. To me hitting in PeeWee is frankly ridiculous.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:28 PM
  #61
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

Barry Willer he was the guy I was thinking of, that article really has nothing though other than his opinion. I'll try find the podcast.

"Personally, I think that would be a mistake," Willer said. "All you're doing is putting it [bodychecking]off and putting it off to an age where the players are bigger and stronger and have more testosterone. The injury rates will not only be higher, but I think more serious."
data says he's wrong about the frequency. Anyone can have an opinion. Backing it up with fact is a different story. Now I cannot argue the more serious/less serious as I'm not sure that's completely measureable. How do you meaasure a "mild concussion".

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:31 PM
  #62
CornKicker
Locked Out
 
CornKicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,486
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
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.
show me the research that shows that 13/14 year old males are smaller and slower than 11/12 year old males?

CornKicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:37 PM
  #63
CornKicker
Locked Out
 
CornKicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,486
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

Barry Willer he was the guy I was thinking of, that article really has nothing though other than his opinion. I'll try find the podcast.

"Personally, I think that would be a mistake," Willer said. "All you're doing is putting it [bodychecking]off and putting it off to an age where the players are bigger and stronger and have more testosterone. The injury rates will not only be higher, but I think more serious."
people making these decisions shouldnt even need a doctors study to come to this conclusion. its baffling that this isnt the common sense conclusion to the issue.

The difference in size between 13/14 year olds is drastic compared to 11/12 year olds.

The arguement that they should dedicate peewee practices to teaching the kids how to hit/take hits so they dont get their head taken off in Bantam is retarded. You want to dedicate already limited icetime to something that has no effect on the kids season right now to give them a few 1hr sessions on hitting? something that if phased into the game properly at a young age doesnt need to have practices dedicated to it?

the people coming up with these rules cannot be people that have played or are invloved in the game in any capacity the common sense is just not there.

CornKicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:39 PM
  #64
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,308
vCash: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
data says he's wrong about the frequency. Anyone can have an opinion. Backing it up with fact is a different story. Now I cannot argue the more serious/less serious as I'm not sure that's completely measureable. How do you meaasure a "mild concussion".
The guy has data to back up his statements. The simple fact is no one knows the proper solution.


Willer's study, which monitored the rates of injuries among roughly 3,000 kids who played in the Burlington Lions Minor Hockey Association over a five-year period, produced some surprising data.

The study, published last month, noted a "spike" in injuries among players in the first year that bodychecking was introduced. The report added that the majority of those injuries (66 per cent) were the result of "unintentional collisions" and not a result of a deliberate attempt to bodycheck.

Willer explained that "unintentional collisions" included players accidentally running into one another or injuring themselves when they fell to the ice, into the boards or goalposts.

joestevens29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:39 PM
  #65
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornKicker View Post
show me the research that shows that 13/14 year old males are smaller and slower than 11/12 year old males?
I didn't say that. The research doesn't say you're deferring the risk. It says waiting until Bantam to introduce checking doesn't increase the number of concussion and injuries compared to regions that have checking in PeeWee. It also says the rate of injuries and concussions is far greater in PeeWee (with contact) than other levels (specifically Bantam).

So, no down side to waiting on the checking. Big downside to checking in PeeWee .... from a health perspective. You totally twisted that around.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #66
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,308
vCash: 98
Dillon Simpson ‏@Simmer18 2m
Now Alberta will have post-puberty 6'0 180 lbs guys starting to learn how to hit in games while playing vs. 5'3 110lbs kids

joestevens29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:49 PM
  #67
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
I fuind it curious that Hockey Alberta absolutly ignored its constiuents (the parents) & its member orgaizations & did what it always wanted to do anyways. They could have taken a more thoughtful approach, such as :
1) making year specificc league as they do down east
2) excepting out rep hockey from the rule
3) expand the no hit leagues

Instead, they take the risk management approach. Its frankly ridiculous.
Apparently they do listen to constituents......


BODY CHECKING SURVEY RESULTS
1,114 Responses Starting in June at Hockey Alberta’s Annual General Meeting
62 % Believe HA needed to review its position on body checking
80% Believe it needs to be Provincial decision
55% Believe HA should “change” its position on Body Checking
55% Believe Body Checking should be removed from all PW

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:50 PM
  #68
Q Continuum
You are Wrong
 
Q Continuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,014
vCash: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Dillon Simpson ‏@Simmer18 2m
Now Alberta will have post-puberty 6'0 180 lbs guys starting to learn how to hit in games while playing vs. 5'3 110lbs kids
That sounds so safe. I'd love to be a 5'5 or so kid, learning to hit going up against physical freaks like Sean Day.

I won't be shocked if we see more kids quitting when they see the specimens kids start becoming at the age they'll start hitting.

Q Continuum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 02:54 PM
  #69
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
The guy has data to back up his statements. The simple fact is no one knows the proper solution.


Willer's study, which monitored the rates of injuries among roughly 3,000 kids who played in the Burlington Lions Minor Hockey Association over a five-year period, produced some surprising data.

The study, published last month, noted a "spike" in injuries among players in the first year that bodychecking was introduced. The report added that the majority of those injuries (66 per cent) were the result of "unintentional collisions" and not a result of a deliberate attempt to bodycheck.

Willer explained that "unintentional collisions" included players accidentally running into one another or injuring themselves when they fell to the ice, into the boards or goalposts.
I must've misunderstood the last post. I would agree with the "spike" statement. Regardless of whether checking is introduced in PW or Bantam, you're going to have more injuries at the level its introduced than if that level did not have checking. You're going to have that spike if you introduce in Novice, Atom, PeeWee, Bantam or Midget.

The other side of the arguement is that introducing that when they're bigger means they're better able to handle the physical side, even if they're 5'3". Introducing that "spike" when they're younger and more physically immature (as per hockey alberta facts) when there is critical brain development from 11-13 years is something they're trying to avoid.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:00 PM
  #70
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,308
vCash: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
I must've misunderstood the last post. I would agree with the "spike" statement. Regardless of whether checking is introduced in PW or Bantam, you're going to have more injuries at the level its introduced than if that level did not have checking. You're going to have that spike if you introduce in Novice, Atom, PeeWee, Bantam or Midget.

The other side of the arguement is that introducing that when they're bigger means they're better able to handle the physical side, even if they're 5'3". Introducing that "spike" when they're younger and more physically immature (as per hockey alberta facts) when there is critical brain development from 11-13 years is something they're trying to avoid.
So why not start hitting at 8 or 9?

Well to be honest have two separate leagues and be done with.

joestevens29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:18 PM
  #71
Muad'Dib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Arrakis
Country: Canada
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Min...465/story.html

Quote:
Medical and brain injury experts have repeatedly urged Canadian minor hockey organizations to cease all league play involving mixed ages under 15 because of the risk to smaller, younger players from bigger, faster, heavier and more mature opponents.

The same experts urge the elimination of all body checking below 15. They argue that the anatomical structure of early adolescents — larger, heavier head and weaker neck muscles — makes them particularly vulnerable to whiplash brain trauma. Statistics bear this out.

This age group is three times more susceptible to such injuries than players over 15.
It comes down to the basic anatomy of young males. They are basically bobbleheads on skates.

Muad'Dib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:38 PM
  #72
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
So why not start hitting at 8 or 9?

Well to be honest have two separate leagues and be done with.
There is another league, Recreational Hockey League, was called the No-Hit League a few years ago.

http://www.hockeyedmonton.ca/index.p...gory=RecHockey

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:45 PM
  #73
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Bob Mckenzie Blog.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=331558

An interesting quote that seems to be occurring on this thread.

"You can't rationalize having kids injured earlier in life and more often, so I think later is better."

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:47 PM
  #74
Thrill22
Feelin' it
 
Thrill22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 457
vCash: 500
I'd be okay with this, if there was some way in PeeWee they can come up with some kind of leeway in incidental contact - they can't continue to call 2 mins for body contact because they bump shoulders fighting for the puck and the little guy falls down. What's that teaching them?

An actual thrown body check? Sure, penalty. An accidental full on body check? Doesn't matter, penalty. One kid makes a great play taking away the puck, but bumps the other kid, let it go.

Leave the zero tolerance in Atom, I'm all for that.

Thrill22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2013, 03:55 PM
  #75
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrill22 View Post
I'd be okay with this, if there was some way in PeeWee they can come up with some kind of leeway in incidental contact - they can't continue to call 2 mins for body contact because they bump shoulders fighting for the puck and the little guy falls down. What's that teaching them?

An actual thrown body check? Sure, penalty. An accidental full on body check? Doesn't matter, penalty. One kid makes a great play taking away the puck, but bumps the other kid, let it go.

Leave the zero tolerance in Atom, I'm all for that.
Tha hockey Alberta site says that body contact isn't ruled out, just checking is ruled out. Not sure how a 16year old refereee will be able to always tell the difference. Sounds like more abuse to be heeped on officials, here's the quote....

There will be no body checking allowed at the Peewee level, there will still be body contact allowed at the Peewee level."

Bobblehead is online now   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 09:50 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.