HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Ot:hockey alberta eliminates body checking in peewee division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2013, 01:09 AM
  #126
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
This is quite the piece of rhetoric.

You manage to combine a slippery slope argument, with an attack on the honesty and integrity or anyone who disagrees with you. Well done!

Someone can in fact be in favour of violent hits in the game of hockey, and be opposed to those same violent hits being dished out by 10-11 year olds.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
that pretty much sums up his argument.

If we take it from the 10-11 year olds. Well we may just as well take it away from everyone if we go by the studies.

It addresses nothing concerning the long term health of the children which is really the heart of the debate.

It's just an emotional rally flag used to spur strong feelings against "The Man" trying to keep us down. "Ahh they'll make a study for anything."

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:17 AM
  #127
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
The parents are the ones making the decision. I dont really care what a study says or doesnt say tbh. Ive got personal life experiences that have helped to shape my pov. There was hitting in hockey from the get go when I started playing. I took a break for a couple years then went back into a highly physical league and it was a big adjustment.

Everyone has different experiences but that was mine and it would have been much easier for me to have not taken a break than to have done so, trying to adjust to the hitting and physicality again. No question. No study needed.

If you plan on playing contact hockey later on then it only makes sense to learn those fundamentals along with skating, puckhandling, shooting etc. If you dont plan on playing contact hockey that option should be available to you/your kids. Why take the personal choice away? Its absolutely ridiculous.
Taking a break for two years and going back is a lot different from entering a division where everyone is learning to hit. You were playing against players much more experienced with contact than you.

Ironically the solution of seperating contact at peewee and earlier would put a lot of children in that exact same situation. Kids are going to want to move from non-contact to contact and vice versa (not such a problem).

That kid moving to contact against experienced players is in a ton more danger in my opinion than a kid moving into contact and learning the same time as his pears.

The solution of not allowing a child to move from non-contact to contact won't hold up in courts either in my opinion.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:51 AM
  #128
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
Well that really says everything that needs to be said, doesn't it.
Im sure there are studies that show it is beneficial to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. That may hold value for some, but those with a modicum of common sense probably figured that out on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Taking a break for two years and going back is a lot different from entering a division where everyone is learning to hit. You were playing against players much more experienced with contact than you.

Ironically the solution of seperating contact at peewee and earlier would put a lot of children in that exact same situation. Kids are going to want to move from non-contact to contact and vice versa (not such a problem).

That kid moving to contact against experienced players is in a ton more danger in my opinion than a kid moving into contact and learning the same time as his pears.

The solution of not allowing a child to move from non-contact to contact won't hold up in courts either in my opinion.
The options should be there so those who want to proceed in one direction of the other are afforded the opportunity to do so.

If someone decides to be wishy washy about it and ping pongs back and forth between the two leagues, then that is a dilemma of their own creation.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 02:11 AM
  #129
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Taking a break for two years and going back is a lot different from entering a division where everyone is learning to hit. You were playing against players much more experienced with contact than you.

Ironically the solution of seperating contact at peewee and earlier would put a lot of children in that exact same situation. Kids are going to want to move from non-contact to contact and vice versa (not such a problem).

That kid moving to contact against experienced players is in a ton more danger in my opinion than a kid moving into contact and learning the same time as his pears.

The solution of not allowing a child to move from non-contact to contact won't hold up in courts either in my opinion.
Bantam is still a 2 year division, so half the players will be introduced to hitting against player in their second year of hitting.

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:36 AM
  #130
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
Bantam is still a 2 year division, so half the players will be introduced to hitting against player in their second year of hitting.
Nice logic How does that differ from peewee when hitting was still allowed.

Tedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 08:40 AM
  #131
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topchowda View Post
I wasnt calling out Quebec hockey, I was just trying to idenitfy if the size difference may be one possibility. What works in Quebec wont work in AB type thing. All I can speak of is my personal experience. I played bantam probaly 6-7 years ago and it way a very rough league, especially against the farm teams.

I just cant agree with the statistics till I see a province/state that went from hitting in peewee to hitting in bantam and see the % change in injuries. If the studies show that delaying hitting till bantam decreased injuries in bantam kids from the time periods when kids came in knowing how to hit vs the kids who come in just learning how to hit.

Common sense tells me injuries in bantam will increase when kids are learning how to hit, essantially delaying a kids injury by a year. And once they enter bantam, those size difference in kids will grow, magnifying any injuries. In peewee a 5 foot kid will run into a 4'6 kid, in bantam a 5'7 kid will run into 4'9 kid

I cannot be fully nuetral since I just finished playing hockey, but I am in favour of teaching them early. Lacrosse does it, then helped me adjust in that sport when I was in novice, and its parlayed into hockey, so when I when into peewee hockey I had little problems.
Your size argument is exactly why the results we're worded the results... data strongly supports.... there could be some factors that come into play that haven't been identified. But for now, knowing what they do about brain injuries, that teaching them young has no proven benefit, lets err on the side of caution.

You're throwing out height numbers here and there to benefit your view point. What about the 5'11" 150 lbs 2nd year PeeWee kid who runs over the 4'6" 96lbs 1 year Pee Wee kid? You forgot them in your argument about hitting.

The data doesn't support the argument that teaching them early helps. All hockey players need to learn to skate with the head up -hitting or no hitting. How do you pass, deke or shoot without you're head up. You don't need hitting to teach that skill. There is no data on the size component and as much as one would think it makes a little sense its easy to poke holes in that too. Is it really the size of the hitter that matters or the speed he's going at? Is AB hockey faster than QC hockey? Is it the size of the hitter that matters or is it the size difference that matters .... ie 5'6" 140lbs hitting a 4'6" 106lbs or 5'11" 170lbs hitting a 5'4" 140lbs. who will get hurt more? How much was speed a factor? We don't know. We just know brain injuries are bad. We know statistically speaking that teaching hitting in PeeWee doesn't change the risk of injury in Bantam.

Everyone agrees the year you introducing hitting will see a rise in injuries, whether its Atom, PW or Bantam. There is no doubt. Terry Jones had a article about it and I brought it up yesterday. Whichever year you introduce hitting, you should split the kids by year. Introduce Major/Minor Bantam (or PeeWee) so that the first year kdis just learning are only playing first year kids who are also learning. Great idea.

Its hard to be fully neutral also. I have two kids coming up through hockey and I'm glad they moved it to Bantam. Statistics say neither kid is going to make it to the NHL, so why add more risk.

If teaching them at a young age makes them safer and better in Bantm and Midget, why don't we start teaching out kids to drive @ 8 years old? Then by the time they're 16 they'll be experts!

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 08:48 AM
  #132
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
They should be lowering the age, not raising it. I think they should start teaching how to hit in practice in novice, and should have contact in atom, before the early bloomers start shooting up.

Having a bunch of hormone fueled 13-15 year olds just learning how to hit is going to cause a lot of situations where people aren't respecting each other and pulling dirty hits.
If that were true, you would see a higher injury rate in the data from Quebec. Injury rates in Bantam in QC (where hitting starts in Bantam) are the same as in AB (where hitting starts in PeeWee). That means teaching kids to hit in PeeWee DOES NOT reduce their injuries later. It doesn't "teach" them how to take a hit. It does nothing to help reduce brain injuries. Why can't you guys understand that? Its in the data. Its not an opinion. All of the arguments for hitting in PeeWee are purely opinion and emotion and "common sense" which really is another way of saying "popular opinion".

I think they should start teaching the basics of body checking (angling, separating the opponent from the puck) in PeeWee. I think they should split Bantam into Major/Minor, so first year kids get used to it with other first year kids.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:30 AM
  #133
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,733
vCash: 688
Anyone hear Gregor yesterday with regards to hitting in Lacrosse? I just caught the end, but he mentioned there is a line 6 feet from the boards, and this is deemed a no hit zone.

Would've probably been a good idea to go that route first.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:35 AM
  #134
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Anyone hear Gregor yesterday with regards to hitting in Lacrosse? I just caught the end, but he mentioned there is a line 6 feet from the boards, and this is deemed a no hit zone.

Would've probably been a good idea to go that route first.
Hockey is waaay more fluid than lacrosse though. Guys running down the floor and then setting up in an offence vs. constant, faster movement all over the ice.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:35 AM
  #135
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,385
vCash: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Im sure there are studies that show it is beneficial to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. That may hold value for some, but those with a modicum of common sense probably figured that out on their own.
That's actually an example that goes against your point.

Hand washing wasn't routinely done for most of human history. It was only with the discovery in the 19th century that germs caused diseases, and studies that showed you could combat the spread of those germs by washing your hands, that people began to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

Yukon Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:37 AM
  #136
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this decision and how it was made, though.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:59 AM
  #137
fiftymissioncap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
If that were true, you would see a higher injury rate in the data from Quebec. Injury rates in Bantam in QC (where hitting starts in Bantam) are the same as in AB (where hitting starts in PeeWee). That means teaching kids to hit in PeeWee DOES NOT reduce their injuries later. It doesn't "teach" them how to take a hit. It does nothing to help reduce brain injuries. Why can't you guys understand that? Its in the data. Its not an opinion. All of the arguments for hitting in PeeWee are purely opinion and emotion and "common sense" which really is another way of saying "popular opinion".

I think they should start teaching the basics of body checking (angling, separating the opponent from the puck) in PeeWee. I think they should split Bantam into Major/Minor, so first year kids get used to it with other first year kids.
This. Good post.

fiftymissioncap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:05 AM
  #138
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Anyone hear Gregor yesterday with regards to hitting in Lacrosse? I just caught the end, but he mentioned there is a line 6 feet from the boards, and this is deemed a no hit zone.

Would've probably been a good idea to go that route first.
There isnt a line but generally in lacrosse the kids "get it" not to hit a guy in that zone.
What boggles my mind(actually it doesnt because HA had an agenda from the get go & pre determined the result) was why not have a no hit league, and then the regular league.
Of course, that doesnt fit into the agenda, now does it. Hopefully the same clowns who were involved in these decisions dont become involved in lacrosse, rugby, footballl....etc.
Because horror of horror, kids get injured playing contact sports.

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:11 AM
  #139
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Nice logic How does that differ from peewee when hitting was still allowed.
It doesn't differ, did you read what I quoted, that person stated that it 'entering a division where everyone is learning to hit'. This is not the case in Bantam or Peewee. One of my earlier suggestions is have single age groups.

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:36 AM
  #140
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
That's actually an example that goes against your point.

Hand washing wasn't routinely done for most of human history. It was only with the discovery in the 19th century that germs caused diseases, and studies that showed you could combat the spread of those germs by washing your hands, that people began to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.
Thanks for the lesson on the history of handwashing.

If hitting causes brain injuries, why put any age group at risk?

Isnt that the ultimate goal here?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:47 AM
  #141
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,154
vCash: 500
I have been involved in the game of hockey all my life. Played it,coached it and scouted it. Out of the thousands of kids I have played with,against,coached and scouted I can't think of an incident that caused the death of or serious injury of one.

There are no news reports of Little Johnny Hockey 15 years after he played pewee barely being able to speak because of brain damage because there is no Little Johnny Hockey like that.

Joe Hallenback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:50 AM
  #142
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skm View Post
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this decision and how it was made, though.
Stupid decision = Your opinion (which you share with some others). While many of us believe leaving checking in PeeWee is the dumber of the two options.

You're welcome to voice that opinion, and while I don't think its the perfect solution, I do believe it is the best of the two options. That they didn't investigate or bring in additional measures is disappointing, but maybe BC and NS will be a little more ambitious with how to teach kids and Alberta can learn from them.

How the decision was made? Medical studies, people who've been associated with the sport for years, public consultation (although its bizarre there are 2 surveys?) ..... seems liek they did their due diligence.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:00 AM
  #143
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,733
vCash: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Stupid decision = Your opinion (which you share with some others). While many of us believe leaving checking in PeeWee is the dumber of the two options.

You're welcome to voice that opinion, and while I don't think its the perfect solution, I do believe it is the best of the two options. That they didn't investigate or bring in additional measures is disappointing, but maybe BC and NS will be a little more ambitious with how to teach kids and Alberta can learn from them.

How the decision was made? Medical studies, people who've been associated with the sport for years, public consultation (although its bizarre there are 2 surveys?) ..... seems liek they did their due diligence.
There was more than 2 options. Why is the third option not being talked about or swept under the rug?

As mentioned numerous times in this thread, third option is having 2 different leagues.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:03 AM
  #144
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
I have been involved in the game of hockey all my life. Played it,coached it and scouted it. Out of the thousands of kids I have played with,against,coached and scouted I can't think of an incident that caused the death of or serious injury of one.

There are no news reports of Little Johnny Hockey 15 years after he played pewee barely being able to speak because of brain damage because there is no Little Johnny Hockey like that.

Woh! Now we're talking death! We're still learning about the effects of multiple concussions and how they impact people 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. I take it you've personnally interviewed and medically assessed the 1000s of hockey players you've coached, played with and scouted?

There's no Little Johnny Hockey because there wasn't this awareness around concussion 15 years ago! They weren't diagnosed or understood like they are today (and today they're not well understood either). Post-concussion symptoms range from dizziness to memory loss to headaches (and more).... losing the ability to speak is not a symptom.

You think you're the only guy on here that's been around hockey for decades? You think none of the cuys on the Hockey AB panel have been around hockey for decades? You don't think the Mayo clinic has any hockey background?

Rick Martin had one diagnosed concussion and autopsy on his brain showed degenrative brain disease. Talk to Wayne Primeau and Eric Lindros and Brett Lindros about it.

There's an example for all you teach it younger. Lindros played in ON where checking was allowed in PeeWee and he's one of the worst for having his head down.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:08 AM
  #145
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Here's my bottom line opinion: teaching kids at a yougner age, when they are closer in size and skill, how to properly give and more importantly take a hit is the better option.

So now hitting starts in bantam...in first year bantam I was 5'0'' and 100lbs. There were two kids on my team that were >6'0'' and 175lbs. You connect the dots.

Brutal day for minor hockey in this province.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:11 AM
  #146
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
There was more than 2 options. Why is the third option not being talked about or swept under the rug?

As mentioned numerous times in this thread, third option is having 2 different leagues.
Like I said. I wish they had looked at other options. Checking in PeeWee or no checking in PeeWee, based on the data and research I pick no checking every time.

A viable third or fourth option I would be interested in hearing about it. I don't think leaving the choice up to the parents or kids is right either (contact vs non contact). Many kids would be pushed or influenced by the same attitudes expressed here. Let's just look after the best interest of the majority. I think they could've done something to help the transition when they do bring in contact.

My oldest is in Novice and we have wingnuts who are convinced their kid will make the show. I'm an advocate for kids having fun, learning life & hockey skills and getting physical activity. We're training a bunch of future doctors, lawyers, teachers, firemen, roughnecks and bus drivers to be beer league hockey players. That's what the vast majority of these kids will become. The glory of Canada's hockey supremacy... I don't give a crap as long as the kids are having fun.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:12 AM
  #147
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skm View Post
Here's my bottom line opinion: teaching kids at a yougner age, when they are closer in size and skill, how to properly give and more importantly take a hit is the better option.

So now hitting starts in bantam...in first year bantam I was 5'0'' and 100lbs. There were two kids on my team that were >6'0'' and 175lbs. You connect the dots.

Brutal day for minor hockey in this province.
Studies state your opinion is totally wrong. Good day in Alberta for kids in minor hockey.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:17 AM
  #148
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,733
vCash: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Like I said. I wish they had looked at other options. Checking in PeeWee or no checking in PeeWee, based on the data and research I pick no checking every time.

A viable third or fourth option I would be interested in hearing about it. I don't think leaving the choice up to the parents or kids is right either (contact vs non contact). Many kids would be pushed or influenced by the same attitudes expressed here. Let's just look after the best interest of the majority. I think they could've done something to help the transition when they do bring in contact.

My oldest is in Novice and we have wingnuts who are convinced their kid will make the show. I'm an advocate for kids having fun, learning life & hockey skills and getting physical activity. We're training a bunch of future doctors, lawyers, teachers, firemen, roughnecks and bus drivers to be beer league hockey players. That's what the vast majority of these kids will become. The glory of Canada's hockey supremacy... I don't give a crap as long as the kids are having fun.
That's you, you pick no. How about the parents who's kids are at elite levels that want to be able to give their kids the best skills possible at the earliest? How about the kids that are having fun in the hitting leagues?

Can't wait to see in 10 years when we lose that Canadian edge we have in international tournaments.

Shouldn't shock me though the coddling that kids get nowadays is sickening.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:19 AM
  #149
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
This is quite the piece of rhetoric.

You manage to combine a slippery slope argument, with an attack on the honesty and integrity or anyone who disagrees with you. Well done!

Someone can in fact be in favour of violent hits in the game of hockey, and be opposed to those same violent hits being dished out by 10-11 year olds.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Incrementalism and a slippery slope argument are not the same thing. Yelling "slippery slope argument!!!!" is indeed what a dishonest incrementalist would do to try and defend themselves in the interim, but I don't think that kind of intentional deception is at hand here.

There is also no attack on honesty taking place. You're reading that in if you see it. Simply asking for reflection and clarity.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:22 AM
  #150
Moneypuck
Registered User
 
Moneypuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Looks as though Hockey Alberta is concerned about drop off at this level. How do we know this isn't just a cash grab to keep kids and their parents in the game paying through the nose to give little Joey something to do for another 2 or 3 years.

Appears to me to be more cash grab than a safety issue.

Moneypuck 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 06:05 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.