Two Minutes, Roughing!

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2615512

Getting hurt is a part of life. It can teach you things that couldn't otherwise be learned, and while trying to avoid pain is generally a good idea, you can't run from it your entire life.

FOCUS: What are your feelings on this proposed ban? Put aside that it's being considered in Canada. Is this the best way to lower the number of injuries faced by young hockey players, or is there a better method?

 

I 100% disagree with this ban. If anything I feel that they should introduce checking at a lower age.
Teaching the kids how to check and take a check at a younger age when they are are smaller and less likely to kill each other would be a good idea. That way they will know how to keep their head up and take a check.

Every time we played teams from leagues that didn't allow checking there was a lot more dirty stick work.

 

Is it our generation that has gotten soft? My father was 100% a "rub some dirt on it guy." Now kids have to wear bike helmets, you can't check in pee-wee hockey, what next you can't tackle in Pop Warner?

I was watching the news with my wife this winter and there was a story about a kid who was killed in a sledding accident. The parents were trying to pass a law to make kids have to start wearing a helmet while sledding. My opinion was that sometimes you just have to recognize a horrible accident, a tragedy. Do we have to raise public awareness of every event like this?

However it was not my kid or loved one that suffered the tragedy. In that case I could not imagine what the parent would feel, I almost feel like the parents and family members start committee's like that so they do not have to feel the grief of the loss.

All in all I hate hearing shit like this. We are not going to be able to wrap our children in bubble wrap their whole life, we have to let them live a little. I empathize and have sympathy for parents who suffered a tragic loss but sometimes you just have to recognize it for what it is.

 

I play just as physical as the next guy when it comes to sports, but I'm going to agree with them on this one. At a young age, kids are still learning to appreciate the sport's fundamentals. If they're out there getting roughed up before they even know how to play, it can ruin it for them. 11-12 is definitely too old, but certainly at lower levels I'd be in favor of it. It's the same reason slide tackles are banned at lower levels of soccer. Imagine being 9 and getting hit in such a way that you miss weeks, or even months, of playing. Unless a kid loved the sport already, chances they wouldn't go back to playing.

The only sport I can think where this wouldn't apply is football, since tackling is inherent to the sport. You can have hockey without checking; you can't have football without tackling. It'd be good to teach the proper way to check (because it wouldn't take long for a kid to think cross-checking is kosher), but not allow it to be used competitively until a certain age. At what age that's appropriate, I have no idea.

For me, it's not a safety issue (though I'm sure the founders of the ban see it otherwise), but rather a way to keep the kids' interest. Is it arbitrary and unnecessary? Maybe, but so is the bullshit rule that stealing bases and leading off aren't allowed in lower levels of Little League.

 

A legal hit isn't going to cause head injuries, except in extremely rare cases. PeeWee is a good level to start teaching kids how to safely deliver and receive a check. Wait a little longer, and you're liable to have hot headed punks looking to hurt people instead of playing the game. A little earlier, and I don't think the majority of the kids have the necessary understanding of the game and fundamentals to move on to checking.

Checking is a part of the game. It can and does play a vital role, and easily can swing the momentum 180 degrees. The parents who most vocally advocate banning checking probably have never played, and/or are overbearing helicopter parents anyway.

I've played hockey since I was ~5, both ice and inline, hitting and non hitting leagues. Helped coach a couple teams as well, so I'm not just spouting bullshit.

 

You move up to contact rugby age 8. I remember the year before contact we started doing some contact in training sessions as well. The introduction to contact is important as you learn how to be safe. I remember spending some pretty boring training sessions learning how to fall and tackle safely. Held me in good stead for all of my rugby playing. If you don't let kids start early the focus on safety will be lost to some extent, as training sessions get inevitably more serious as you get older, and 12 year olds don't want to spend an hour learning how to fall without putting your arms out. I imagine this applies across all sports, and taking away unsafe elements at an age where you can still instill good safety values easily seems stupid to me.

The biggest problem with all the safe tackling stuff I learnt was unlearning it when I started to play American football.

 

Look, I'm all for the safety of the kids but shit like this pisses me off. I'm almost 21 now and even back when I was a kid I was scrapping on the playground, playing football, hockey and wrestling and was generally an aggressive kid. Nowadays, a playground scrap gets you suspended for 3 days, flag football is "medically encouraged" under the age of 12, and inline hockey doesn't allow checking. It was instilled in me early on from my father that if I got hurt and I started crying, I better be real fucking hurt. I broke 4 ribs getting checked over the bench boards playing ice and went on to finish the last 10 minutes of the game because I knew if I was a pussy in front of dad, I would never hear the end of it. Now parents are worried about 7, 8 and 9 year olds checking too hard. Teach them at a young age to check correctly and to get used to the contact and the pain so it's not a shock when they hit whatever age checking is "appropriate" and suddenly hate the sport because they can't adjust. Add more padding to the helmet if you're worried about concussions.

Let the kids grow a pair of balls.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth. I can't imagine letting kids learn to check at an older age is any safer. It just changes it to bigger stronger bodies hitting each other, which in my mind would lead to more injuries.

Also, I am in no way surprised that they don't allow Pee Wee checking in Quebec. French-Canadian Pussies.

 

Seriously? Just keep your head up in the corner. Good hits are one of the best parts of hockey. I enjoy watching someone get laid the fuck out, it's amusing. Might as well teach kids how to pouch up and take a hit properly instead of turning them into pussies.

 

I'm going to agree with the ban. I also agree that it's important for kids to learn how to receive a check and safely deliver one, but I don't think it's a skill worth the 300% increased chance of a little kid suffering a concussion. For the same reason, I wouldn't think it's a good idea to punch a kid in the back of the head. Sure it'll toughen him up, and it's a legal move when playing Punch Kids In the Back of the Head, but it's a dumbass way to toughen up your kid. Without body checking you're still going to take a fair number of hits and get knocked on your ass enough times to learn how to fall correctly. I would start letting them body check when they're on the JV high school team.

The "it's a part of the sport" argument is pretty weak to me. Sports are whatever we make them to be. It's only a part of the sport because we say so. If we say otherwise, then it's not part of the sport.

 

300% more likely, that's 3 times. So what are the average chances of a peewee getting concussion due to checking anyway throughout their peewee career? That's the statistic that matters.

 

Yeah, otherwise it's called figure skating.

 

I'm not suprised or concerned there are injuries in hockey. However, what % of these were for cheap shots, hitting from behind, elbow to the head penalties/suspendable actions. The existance of injuries and hitting allowed doesn't = get rid of hitting. PLus they posted the # of injuries, is there 5 times as many kids enrolled in hockey vs Quebec (the tenderfoot province).

"There was no difference in the injury rates during practices between Quebec and Alberta peewees, she said, and it's probably a good idea to train the younger players in body-checking skills to be used competitively later"

Well this is a bullshit stat, no one tries to kill their teammates in football practice either, but you'll try to maim the asshole on the other team every time. NO doubt injuries from practicing are low everywhere.

And did no one else see how biased this research seem when factoring this

"Her own 11-year-old daughter plays non-contact hockey and Emery said she wouldn't want to change it."

IN other words, I know hitting will make the game so my little princess can't compete with the boys anymore, so we should change the rules for everybody and let my little girl join in all the reindeer games.


When you want rules in a sport changed from the way it has been for a long long long time for your little princess, you can fuck off. Watch, if it happens, in 2 years when her sweet little girl is hitting bantam hockey, the same study will be back. Calgary has womens teams with no hitting (i'm sure they must), get her on some of those and leave boys sports alone.

 

I think Peewee is the right age the bring in bodychecking. In the Lower Mainland in BC, they actually brought it down from Bantam (13 and 14) to Peewee just a few years ago. Good move in my mind. Hitting is a fundamental part of hockey and needs to be taught, along with how to properly receive a bodycheck so you don't get injured.

I would honestly love to see hitting, or some form of body contact in even Atom (10 and 11), but thanks to idiots like Don Cherry, there seems to be an unnecessary focus on hitting. Yes it's part of the game, but it's not the most important part of the game. The point of a body check is to separate the player from the puck. Knocking the player down is a consequence of a hit, not the intention. If you hit the puck carrier and you fall down while he stays up, but your teammate ends up with the puck and takes of the other way, that's a good hit.

Now there's all these idiots watching Rock 'Em Sock 'Em videos who only care about driving the other player through the boards. Ya I love seeing a bodycheck too, but there's a time and place for it. And too many players in minor hockey it seems just run around looking for hits. Go play football if you wanna do that shit, and stay the fuck off the ice. This attitude is what's causing all these injuries in hockey, not hitting at a younger age.

I've played organized hockey for 15 years and reffed it for 8 years now. 8 of the playing years and 6 of the reffing have been in a league with hitting allowed. Good clean hockey hits that are delivered by players playing the puck and hitting at the appropriate time rarely cause injuries. I've only ever had one concussion while playing and it was from a check from behind, headfirst into the boards, an illegal hit and one that we as refs are taught to consider intent to injure and call accordingly. 95% of the time I see a player injured from a hit, they are caused by shitheads who only watch the puck to see who they can hit. They don't care about the score at the end of the game, they just want to go out and hit someone. This attitude is what needs to be banned from the game, not hitting.

 

Pee Wee might be the right age to bring it into games, but kids should start learning how to take/receive checks earlier. A lot of times no hitting means these kids learn to play with their heads down, looking at the puck. When these kids are exposed to checking, this will eventually catch up with them. Just ask Eric Lindros, who probably still wets the bed every now and then whenever someone mentions Scott Stevens.

 

I don't know a lot about hockey, but when safety is concerned (reasonably) I think those of you who mentioned not letting the younger leagues hit each other. For safety reasons they introduced the pitch count in youth league baseball and banned the curve ball till kids had time for their arms to develop and recieve instruction. IF there is a real risk of injury until they have been taught how to hit and be hit then maybe this is not a bad rule suggestion?

 

LET THE BOYS PLAY! What’s next, 2 hand touch football? I might be bias since I played football and lacrosse growing up. However I was a defensive lineman and long stick defenseman. So hitting people is what I did on the field. Sure there was a game going on, but my duties were to hit people and get the ball. Lacrosse would have sucked if I couldn’t check people, that’s one of the best ways to get the ball. With out checking it's sword fighting with a ball. If you don’t like it, then enroll your kid in swimming. Getting hurt prepares you for the real world, you're going to get knocked on your ass, and it's going to hurt. You will get back up to fight another day.

 

First of all, don't most major cities in Canada have non-contact leagues up until Pee-wee age? I'm sure when I was done youth hockey they were even talking about a non-contact Bantam league as well. If there's enough interest to keep those leagues going, doesn't having the option solve the problem? At the very least there are rec leagues that don't allow hitting or even slap shots. They way I look at it, if you don't want your kid getting hit, you're probably not putting them in hockey with ANY hope/desire of them playing professionaly, so...don't rec leagues also solve the problem?

As for when to implement hitting, Pee-wee seems like a good age to me. It's the age when you're actually figuring out how to skate properly, but there's still an intimidation factor about going into the "hitting league", so kids aren't running around trying to kill each other (in general, there'll always be psychos). Waiting two more years, when the kids are bigger and much more confident on their skates, I think, would result in bigger kids going faster, and much more recklessley, what with their increased testosterone and eagerness to hurt. Teaching them to hit (give AND receive) properly when they're smaller (on average), and can do less damage, would lessen the thrill of hitting when they're bigger, preventing some injuries, though obviously there's no way to prove it. It just seems logical to me to teach small, slower players how to hit, rather than waiting until they're bigger and faster.

Also, I have every Rock 'em Sock 'em video ever made, and I've never seen Don Cherry endorse a dirty hit at all. Along with his 'STOP' campaign, he calls out players like Matt Cooke (on TV and to his face) and for years has been begging the NHL to implement no-touch icing to PROTECT the players. Just because he doesn't speak well and wears funny clothes, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about (when it comes to hockey).

 

This isn't so much about toughening up a kid, as it is teaching your kid that life isn't always safe and clean, even when doing something as common as playing a team sport.

Besides, after reading this article and a couple others on the same topic I'm not sure I even buy this so-called study. Things like this have a tendency to be twisted to suit a certain agenda, and while I understand this woman just wants her kids to be safe, she's gotta come to terms with the fact that not everything is meant to be custom suited to her child's needs. Simply put, if your kid can't handle a sport, they either have to suck it up, or play something else. I mean, I spent years of my life hopping from sport to sport because I couldn't find one I enjoyed. Not once did I bitch and moan to my parents that the fucking game needed to be changed, and not once did they bitch and moan about the same thing. We just moved on and let the other kids who were having fun continue to have it.