Eliminating contact from minor hockey...

[Wolfeman]

So! I'm not sure if this has already been discussed but its eval season and that means everyone's getting back on the ice. I teach piano lessons in Yyc for a living and alot of my students play hockey, mostly peewee but a few bantam.

Just wondering what your thoughts are about contact being eliminated from peewee completely and them trying to phase contact out of lower div bantam and midget?

I for one miss full contact hockey terribly. I wasn't the best player, I wouldn't have played tripple a but I am extremely fond of my minor hockey memories and a huge contributor to the fun I had and the memories I hold. I'm only 25, some days I feel like shaving my face and sneaking on to a local junior c team until I get caught but its not worth it just to get tuned in by some 17 year old. However now they want to eliminate body checking all together... Leaving the whole debate of "what will the future of NHL hold" debate out of it ( because face it, only 1 percent of our kids will even make it to Jr A) what do you think?

My wife and I just had our first son in June and I really hope he likes hockey, but I'm also hoping he has the opportunity to play full contact hockey. It's like the difference of playing flag football and tackle football, there's no comparison, glad is fun but the feeling of crushing a running back or hopping over a line backer who's about to kill you creates a high that nothing else can ever duplicate. Personally I think there should be a completely separate league for non contact because there are guys and girls who don't want to be scared of getting their bell rung if they forget to look up for a second, and I completely respect those kids, you can't expect everyone to have the same bloodthirst for carnage and big cheques that I had, but what about the kids who could really benefit from that physical exertion? I am extremely ADHD, and although I wasn't head hunting it felt really good to rub a guy out and helped me as a teenager sort out some of my own aggression.


What are your thoughts outdoorsmen?

[bobtodrick]

I have much less of an issue with full contact (as long as dirty hits are dealt with harshly) as much as I do with keeping the actions of some of the parents in check.

[dgitz]

I think it's an important part of the game and eliminating it would change the game for the worse. With proper training started at an early age on how to hit properly and how to keep your head up and receive a hit properly there's no reason it should be an overly unsafe part of the game. Especially with the advances in equipment technology.

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by dgitz

I think it's an important part of the game and eliminating it would change the game for the worse. With proper training started at an early age on how to hit properly and how to keep your head up and receive a hit properly there's no reason it should be an overly unsafe part of the game. Especially with the advances in equipment technology.

x2

would rather see coaches & Refs educated on good sportsmanship and how to spot issues arising so it can be defused before someone is hurt. If a coach sees a player becoming over aggressive or singling out a player do your job. control your players or bench them, alas most often the action is encouraged.

[Trochu]

It ranks right up there in my opinion in the though process that somehow suspending teachers who give an F to students who fail, not keeping score, giving trophies/medals to everyone, eliminating peanuts from the entire school as one kid has an allergy, etc., "prepares" kids for life.

[Wolfeman]

I got a concussion from trying to catapult myself over a creek with a 5" tree my friend and I bent down to the ground when I was 10 ( we tied it down to the ground and I stood in it then he cut the rope.... I flew off and the tree snapped up and smoked me in the face, 5 stitches and a concussion later I'm still just as ugly and just as stupid... Maybe we could make trees illegal?

[denpacc]

Until the powers that be, namely refs, coaches, associations etc. get serious about eliminating the players who intentionally hurt, such as hitting from behind and blind-side and head hits, we will continue to see contact taken out of the game. There are too many kids injured due to idiot players trying to "take someone out". I've seen it too many times and it is almost always repeat offenders.

Contact should start in Novice or Atom, the wreck-less players need to be weeded out early and permanently, then there will be way less big, serious injuries IMO. Nothing wrong with a clean, hard hitting, contact game. Injuries will happen like in all sports, but at least the major intentional and fully unnecessary hits will be taken out. It can still be relatively safe, fun, and hard hitting for all involved, without the stupidity of some players who will never change regardless of penalty. Unfortunately we are dealing with the "ban hitting because it will solve all hockey injuries" crowd.

[pinelakeperch]

From what I've heard, the ban on contact is solely for leagues below AA. I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. Watch a midget house league game and you'll see that there's no need for contact in non-competitive hockey.

[Icatchfish]

bad idea, having contact eliminated will make for a much weaker generation of players. Canada is known for physical play

[pinelakeperch]

Originally Posted by Icatchfish

bad idea, having contact eliminated will make for a much weaker generation of players. Canada is known for physical play

The elimination of contact is for non-competitive levels. The players that go on to play junior, college, and pro generally do not play lower than AA minor hockey.

[bark4]

Non competative would be pond hockey or beer league. Thats there purpose. All levels of minor hockey are structured around a competative nature. Some larger centers with a house league may be the only exeption. If they cant handle the hitting play pond hockey.

[kritz]

Johnny - that guy hit me in the corner and it hurt my feelings

Mom- awh Johnny are you Ok, if I buy you a new iphone 6 will that make it better

Johnny, Ya ok mom, I think I may need a candy bar to, and wrap me in a blanket when we get home

Mom - OK johnny

Johnny- Maybe you could ask the coach to not keep score either, We lost the game again.

Mom - your right johnny , no reason for keeping score in sports

[Zuludog]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It ranks right up there in my opinion in the though process that somehow suspending teachers who give an F to students who fail, not keeping score, giving trophies/medals to everyone, eliminating peanuts from the entire school as one kid has an allergy, etc., "prepares" kids for life.

Need a like button. +1

[Zuludog]

Originally Posted by Wolfeman

I got a concussion from trying to catapult myself over a creek with a 5" tree my friend and I bent down to the ground when I was 10 ( we tied it down to the ground and I stood in it then he cut the rope.... I flew off and the tree snapped up and smoked me in the face, 5 stitches and a concussion later I'm still just as ugly and just as stupid... Maybe we could make trees illegal?

LOL Were you trying to catch the road runner?

[villn]

Seems like some may not be aware of the current situation... In Canada, body checking is now banned at the Peewee level, and in Calgary, at lower levels of Bantam as well. It is a done deal, there is no going back now.

In our hockey association, it has resulted in a dramatic change in the composition of our Tier 1 PeeWee team. There were no big kids on the team last year, only kids who had speed and agility made the cut.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by jhutter

From what I've heard, the ban on contact is solely for leagues below AA. I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. Watch a midget house league game and you'll see that there's no need for contact in non-competitive hockey.

How would you feel about eliminating Biology and Chemistry from high school curriculum unless the student went on to be a scientist, or English unless a writer, or Physics unless an engineer, or......?

I get both sides of the argument, but, if a parent doesn't want their child getting hurt, maybe they shouldn't be leaving the house as I'm sure statistically the chances of being injured are much, much greater driving to the game than actually playing it, hitting allowed or not. Also, the Blue Jays currently have 4 players on the injury reserve, Yankees have 7, hitting isn't allowed in baseball, but players still get hurt.

[Albertacoyotecaller]

"A" level hockey isn't competitive now? Hmm.

To me it a poor choice to take checking out of minor hockey. Introduce it at the younger years, teach them correctly, keep the kids and coaches in line and let it take place.

[Etownguy]

If contact is to be allowed, I hope the kids are getting trained how to hit and be hit safely.

For me, contact started at Bantam and I got zero advice/coaching about it. First shift: BANG! Then again and again.

I happened to be a kid that liked a physical game (despite being a scrawny 150lbs), but some coaching would have been appreciated! lol

[JBE]

The next thing they will do is stop keeping score. You do not want little johnny know that there is actually supposed to be a winner in a game.

[propliner]

No contact hockey? Let's just call it NDP hockey. Raising a larger and larger contingent of wussified wimps at an exponential rate. Whatever it takes to feminize our boys...

[NewAlbertan]

I thought this post related to eliminating coach/player intimate contact...

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It ranks right up there in my opinion in the though process that somehow suspending teachers who give an F to students who fail, not keeping score, giving trophies/medals to everyone, eliminating peanuts from the entire school as one kid has an allergy, etc., "prepares" kids for life.

Many children have died or have developed permanent and debilitating illness as a result of a peanut allergy.

Some ignorant people are so selfish and self centered they may think this inconveniences your kid from enjoying a peanut butter sandwich at school. The poor kids gotta wait until he gets home to have one.

Screw the other kid - if he can't take it and actually dies - he deserves to die anyways right?

Because this can happen with casual contact with another kids hands with only mg or two peanut butter and it does not need to be ingested - My kids did not take peanut butter sandwiches to school.

I guess I was just pandering to the "special interests" of another innocent child in the school.

As far as I'm concerned - these are two completely separate issues.

[pinelakeperch]

Originally Posted by Trochu

How would you feel about eliminating Biology and Chemistry from high school curriculum unless the student went on to be a scientist, or English unless a writer, or Physics unless an engineer, or......?

I get both sides of the argument, but, if a parent doesn't want their child getting hurt, maybe they shouldn't be leaving the house as I'm sure statistically the chances of being injured are much, much greater driving to the game than actually playing it, hitting allowed or not. Also, the Blue Jays currently have 4 players on the injury reserve, Yankees have 7, hitting isn't allowed in baseball, but players still get hurt.

That isn't a relevant or sound analogy. Taking a wide breadth of courses is holistically beneficial to a student. What does a 17 year old kid playing C hockey learn from getting a concussion or paralyzed from some kid that can barely skate? Without hitting, the game is still fun, and there is still a sense of camaraderie.

You guys really need to go watch some low calibre bantam and midget hockey games.

Originally Posted by Albertacoyotecaller

"A" level hockey isn't competitive now? Hmm.

To me it a poor choice to take checking out of minor hockey. Introduce it at the younger years, teach them correctly, keep the kids and coaches in line and let it take place.

At the midget age, A hockey isn't very competitive, no offence to anyone who plays midget A or has a child who does. I wouldn't say hitting at that level is the biggest issue, more at the C or "house league" level.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by jhutter

That isn't a relevant or sound analogy. Taking a wide breadth of courses is holistically beneficial to a student. What does a 17 year old kid playing C hockey learn from getting a concussion or paralyzed from some kid that can barely skate? Without hitting, the game is still fun, and there is still a sense of camaraderie.

Sure it is, it just puts a negative slant on your opinion so you don't like it. I can just as easily say "playing a wide breadth of physically demanding sports is beneficial to a student. What does a 17 year old kid with low grades lean from failing Chemistry while everyone else in the class passes? Without taking Chemistry, school can still be beneficial, and the student can still receive an education".

[pinelakeperch]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Sure it is, it just puts a negative slant on your opinion so you don't like it. I can just as easily say "playing a wide breadth of physically demanding sports is beneficial to a student. What does a 17 year old kid with low grades lean from failing Chemistry while everyone else in the class passes? Without taking Chemistry, school can still be beneficial, and the student can still receive an education".

It actually doesn't, you're comparing two completely unrelated things to come to a similar conclusion. The benefits aren't comparable.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by EZM

Many children have died or have developed permanent and debilitating illness as a result of a peanut allergy.

Some ignorant people are so selfish and self centered they may think this inconveniences your kid from enjoying a peanut butter sandwich at school. The poor kids gotta wait until he gets home to have one.

Screw the other kid - if he can't take it and actually dies - he deserves to die anyways right?

Because this can happen with casual contact with another kids hands with only mg or two peanut butter and it does not need to be ingested - My kids did not take peanut butter sandwiches to school.

I guess I was just pandering to the "special interests" of another innocent child in the school.

As far as I'm concerned - these are two completely separate issues.

Thats my point exactly, you've nicely laid out why banning peanuts from school is ridiculous. Whats gonna happen if casual contact is all it takes and the child lets his guard down because peanuts are banned but Bill had a P&J sandwhich while walking to school? I'd just rather teach my child that their health is not someone else's responsibility.

But yes, this is another issue.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by jautter

It actually doesn't, you're comparing two completely unrelated things to come to a similar conclusion. The benefits aren't comparable.

It does. An anolagy, which I'm using, is a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure. As near as I can tell, your indicating something should be eliminated, hitting, due to the negligible benefit, it would appear you believe it to be none, and potential consequences to the individual if they get hit, a concussion or paralysis. In my analogy, Chemistry is to be eliminated, due to the negligible benefits, how many of us actually utilize what we learned in Chem 30, and potential consequences to the individual if they fail, public humiliation and bullying has lead to much more serious consequences than you indicated.

The structure is nearly identical and the same argument can easily be made simply by substituting a few words. Aka, analogy.

[pinelakeperch]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It does. An anolagy, which I'm using, is a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure. As near as I can tell, your indicating something should be eliminated, hitting, due to the negligible benefit, it would appear you believe it to be none, and potential consequences to the individual if they get hit, a concussion or paralysis. In my analogy, Chemistry is to be eliminated, due to the negligible benefits, how many of us actually utilize what we learned in Chem 30, and potential consequences to the individual if they fail, public humiliation and bullying has lead to much more serious consequences than you indicated.

The structure is nearly identical and the same argument can easily be made simply by substituting a few words. Aka, analogy.

I know what an analogy is, thanks. I'm saying that I believe yours to be a false analogy. I have the right to disagree with your analogy just as you have the right to disagree with my opinion.

The harm of contact in minor hockey is very measurable. It is a bit of a stretch to call failing chemistry "public humiliation". To get into Chem 30, you need to prove your knowledge of the subject by passing Chem 20 and generally those who are in the 30 stream pass. In my (anecdotal) experience, very few people fail Chem 30.

I don't necessarily believe that there is a significant benefit to having taken Chem, Bio, or Physics when they aren't relevant to an individual's career path. In fact, I took all three in high school and don't recall using any of them for anything other than trivia. I do think that a well rounded education is at least holistically beneficial to the individual.

I have to ask, what benefit do house league midget players derive out of body contact?

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Thats my point exactly, you've nicely laid out why banning peanuts from school is ridiculous. Whats gonna happen if casual contact is all it takes and the child lets his guard down because peanuts are banned but Bill had a P&J sandwhich while walking to school? I'd just rather teach my child that their health is not someone else's responsibility.

But yes, this is another issue.

Maybe we should let the teachers smoke in class like the old days.

We clearly disagree here.

Sorry to be so harsh here, but my wife works in the school system and had the misfortune to watch a child almost die as they attempted resuscitation - trying to keep his airway open - after administering Epinephrine because someone thought "their kid should be able to enjoy a PB&J at school and that it wasn't their responsibility to ensure the health or safety of another child" by simply following a policy. A policy that to most people isn't that big of a deal.

But, instead, these parents selfishly and ignorantly, took a child's life and put it at risk.

The paramedics had to perform an emergency tracheotomy (on the spot) to ensure the child would not suffocate in the school as other children watched in horror. The kid was turning white/blue and beginning to convulse as they ushered the other kids away.

Sorry I will never be so selfish, self centered, ignorant to want to protect my child's rights to ignore a safety policy and be burdened by having to wait until he/she gets home to enjoy a PB&J.

So.....screw the other kid - he was weak - he has no rights to going to a regular school anyways. He doesn't deserve the chance to lead a normal life.

Unfortunately, he never will lead a normal life again after this incident.

All because it inconvenienced someone else.

To each his own - peace to you. Let's move on - this one surprised me coming from you - I didn't expect that.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Etownguy

If contact is to be allowed, I hope the kids are getting trained how to hit and be hit safely.

For me, contact started at Bantam and I got zero advice/coaching about it. First shift: BANG! Then again and again.

I happened to be a kid that liked a physical game (despite being a scrawny 150lbs), but some coaching would have been appreciated! lol

I don't have to be subjected to it anymore, as my guys are now adults. But, I do remember, as a former coach, that our association held mandatory specific clinics on "hitting" for all Peewee players (and included any 2nd year Peewees or Bantams that had not played contact hockey before) at the start of each season. I assume they all do. This was not necessary in my day, as the general hockey rules applied all the way down, even "squirt" (novice) and we learned the consequences of not keeping our "heads up" when we were 7-8.

And, for those too timid to play the real game (actually those whose parents were too timid, in most cases), there are choices - there is and was the alternative of pure "rec" hockey with no body contact allowed - or just other non-contact sports. But the social engineers feel they have to ruin it for everyone.

Myself and my boys were "little" guys. My youngest, in particular, was always "tiny" at his age level, but athletically very gifted. But he was the one who wanted to play minor tackle football at age 9 and up (horror of horrors... they still let little kids voluntarily do this ... so risky ... OMG). Best thing he and his brother could have done, for the discipline of the game, learning the ultimate "team" approach, and just learning to be fearless of physical contact. When they then hit first year peewee contact hockey they looked forward to being able to utilize a new advantage in play.

And it benefited them immensely. My oldest son was not the "prettiest" player in terms of finesse, and he was always below average size - but during those first peewee evals he left a swath of destruction all over the ice amongst the opposition, and he moved up to more competitive tiers for his years as a result, and played on very good teams with much more competitive approaches, up to Bantam I, and loved it. The tiny guy didn't really need that talent due to his finesse and speed, but I remember him destroying opposing much bigger defenders who crawled back to the bench during evals and regretted assuming he wouldn't knock them on their ass. And I remember his coaches consistently giving him the "C" or an "A" every year from novice through bantam because of his "competitive" approach and nature (Do they still have such - it would seem to be incorrect to "elevate" anyone in that regard just because they deserved it in any leadership sense). He probably holds the minor hockey record for sufferring the most "hit from behind" incidents resulting in major penalties and suspensions to the offenders (6) due to just frustrating much bigger guys in close with his physical play. Luckily, I guess, he has the "hardest head" in the neighbourhood, and never suffered an official concussion, in hockey or football, despite all those head-first collisions with a much bigger defender (he was a running back and kick returner) or the boards. In fact, some of those times, in hockey, he came up right away with his gloves off and intent on pummelling the offender (And actually the one time he stayed down, really hurt, unfortunately for the offender, bigger brother was on the ice and took the guy down with a high speed crosscheck across the shoulders, resulting in the offender being much more hurt ... major brawl ... that's another whole story - but I was unapologetically very proud of said bigger brother).

My boys now "own" their own men's rec hockey team, in a very competitive level, and just love getting out and playing, both for pure fun and "competing". They have a group of friends and friends of friends, some of whom have played at "AA" and "Junior", even NCAA, levels, and some of whom never went beyond "house league", who still want to go out and compete and play, and derive the satisfaction of "winning" (which appears to be a politically incorrect attitude?).

The point is that the social engineers want to destroy the options of actual competition (is that not what sports are about?) in minor sport, in the interests of the "self esteem" of those who are just not very good or dedicated at it, or have no competitive nature. "Self esteem" is not about being told one did great when one did not - it is about actually feeling one did their best at something they are actually good at. I guess my boys and I should feel guilty about all the trophies and medals in my cabinet and on my walls for various actual triumphs in various sports (?) - we do not. They were achieved , sometimes against long odds and more "talented" teams, by sheer competitive team effort.

I think the general rules of hockey, including those of "hitting", should apply right down to the novice level. Kids who are suited to play at that real game level will. Those who are not (or whose parents are too wimpy to allow such) may come back to it later. Or they can play at the pure "rec" level, or do any one of a number of alternative sports. Why are the hockey associations bowing to these dictates? Pretty soon the same social engineers will be coming after minor football (maybe they already are?) and ruining it - they have already pretty much ruined minor soccer in the same vein. Not my fight anymore, but I sure hope some component of parents feels the same way and will fight back.