{"id":950,"date":"2011-06-02T05:00:26","date_gmt":"2011-06-02T11:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hockeyshare.com\/blog\/?p=950"},"modified":"2011-06-02T05:00:26","modified_gmt":"2011-06-02T11:00:26","slug":"usa-hockeys-checking-rule-change-proposal-hitting-the-mark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/usa-hockeys-checking-rule-change-proposal-hitting-the-mark\/","title":{"rendered":"USA Hockey\u2019s Checking Rule Change Proposal \u2013 Hitting the Mark?"},"content":{"rendered":"

USA Hockey will vote on a rule change in June, which would move the legal age for body checking from U12 (Peewee) to U14 (Bantam).\u00a0 This rule change has spurred a lot of discussion among coaches debating on whether or not it is the right move.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Before going into a discussion of whether the rule change best serves the players, let\u2019s take a look at the primary reasons USA Hockey is citing for considering the change.<\/p>\n

Reason #1<\/strong>: According to sports science research, 9-12 years old is the optimal window for skill acquisition.\u00a0 The claim is the removal of checking would allow two more years of hockey, cognitive, and physical development.<\/p>\n

Reason #2<\/strong>: Research indicates there is a 3-fold increased risk of game-related injury (concussions and severe injuries included) when playing in a checking league versus a non-checking league.<\/p>\n

Reason #3<\/strong>: The 11-year old brain is more susceptible to suffering a concussion, and is more susceptible to long-term damage if it is concussed.\u00a0\u00a0 (Information taken from a Mayo Clinic Concussion Symposium)<\/p>\n

Here is USA Hockey\u2019s video outlining these reasons as well as demonstrating some examples of what will and will not be allowed:<\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Uao224AWuvM<\/a><\/p>\n

The proposal also includes progressively increasing the amount of body contact in Mite, Squirt, and Peewee age groups.\u00a0 Mite contact will be increased by introducing more cross-ice games, which creates less space and more collisions. Increasing the amount of small area competitive games and stations, as well as allowing more contact in games will increase contact at the Squirt level.\u00a0 Peewee contact should be progressed by teaching full-body checking in practice and dryland training \u2013 although I\u2019m not sure how they see this as increasing<\/span> the amount of contact at this age level.<\/p>\n

The Debate<\/h2>\n

This proposed change has stirred up a lot of emotion and controversy among players, parents, and coaches alike.\u00a0 If you break down the first two primary reasons USA Hockey has presented for the change, there appears to be arguments on both sides of the fence.<\/p>\n

Reason #1<\/strong>: If players 9-12-years are in a window for optimal skill acquisition, wouldn\u2019t checking be a skill which should be developed and mastered through the players career?\u00a0 I whole-heartedly agree the primary focus of this age group should be skill development, but I do see checking as a skill.<\/p>\n

Reason #2<\/strong>: While this reason really can\u2019t be argued, the question becomes \u2013 does this also apply to Bantams\u2026or Midgets\u2026or Juniors\u2026etc? Does this mean we should take checking out of the game completely to make it safer? I struggle with this argument because I believe there always going to be an inherent risk of injury with a contact sport.\u00a0 Hockey is a contact sport.<\/p>\n

Reason #3<\/strong>: I cannot debate this particular reason \u2013 I am not a medical expert.\u00a0 The argument certainly makes sense to me in terms of the physical development of kids.\u00a0 In my opinion, this item should have been used as their primary reasoning behind the proposal.<\/p>\n

Benefits \/ Detriments<\/h2>\n

I believe the proposal does positively serve some groups, while doing a disservice to other groups.\u00a0 In house-league (recreational) hockey, I believe this rule change could help increase participation and will have an overall positive impact. Many of the players playing at the house level lack the fundamental skills necessary to safely and effectively body check in game scenarios.<\/p>\n

While the proposal may serve recreation level hockey well, I don\u2019t believe it will serve competitive hockey players nearly as well.\u00a0 Players who have a solid foundation in the skills necessary (skating, edgework, etc.) to safely execute a body check will now be losing two seasons of developing this skill.\u00a0 There are two main points where I believe this change does a disservice:<\/p>\n

Point #1<\/strong>: Checking will be moving to an age category where players are bigger, faster, and stronger.\u00a0 According to USA Hockey\u2019s \u201cWindow of Trainability\u201d chart (http:\/\/www.admkids.com\/images\/content\/WindowsofTrainability.jpg<\/a>), players between 12-14 are in an optimal training window for speed and strength.\u00a0 It has been my experience that there is a large disparity in the strength between first year Bantams and second year Bantams \u2013 in part due to kids beginning to grow and starting to mature.\u00a0 I believe this physical disparity will cause more issues than we currently see at the U12 (Peewee) level where checking is currently introduced.<\/p>\n

Point #2<\/strong>: The structure of many States push youth players into a high school or midget programs.\u00a0 These programs typically have a 4-year age spread (Freshmen \u2013 Senior).\u00a0 Especially in the case of high school programs (think JV & Varsity teams), it is often the case where players will only play a single year of Bantam hockey before joining a high school team.\u00a0 Now there will be players being introduced to an environment with a huge age\/maturity span with only a single year of checking experience under their belts. In my opinion, this scenario is not conducive to the safety of the players involved.<\/p>\n

A Big Challenge<\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

Any coach who has been coaching through the last significant rule changes in USA Hockey – immediate off sides and the new standard of enforcement for stick penalties \u2013 know the frustration that came along with the changes.\u00a0 In my opinion, the single biggest challenge the checking proposal faces is the ability for officials to consistently call the new standards.\u00a0 The new standard will introduce a lot of gray-area and put the burden on the officials to differentiate between incidental contact and intentional body checking.\u00a0 Hopefully parents, coaches and players will have some patience with officials as they work through the kinks, but there will remain the potential of some very heated\/emotional situations.<\/p>\n

The Core of it All \/ My Recommendations<\/h2>\n

I believe the core of this issue really lies in education and development of the skill of checking.\u00a0 I\u2019m not a fan of putting rules in place instead of addressing a core deficiency.\u00a0 Here are my thoughts\/recommendations for USA Hockey instead of implementing the current checking proposal:<\/p>\n

Increase\/Update the Materials Available<\/strong> – USA Hockey does give coaches some good resources to learn how to teach checking (http:\/\/www.usahockey.com\/\/Template_Usahockey.aspx?NAV=CO_07_04&ID=270654<\/a>) – however, I believe something sorely lacking is an updated video for coaches discussing how to teach checking on-ice.\u00a0 There is a descent (albeit a little old-looking) USA Hockey \u201cHeads Up\u201d Hockey video \u2013but to find it, I had to search YouTube and find it uploaded by a user (not by USA Hockey): http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yMV9Q97k3sk<\/a><\/p>\n

In case you haven\u2019t yet seen our videos I\u2019ve included them here:<\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=JrDWtvJvt4g<\/a><\/p>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FgkxNLxLR0s<\/a><\/p>\n

Start a Checking Safety Initiative<\/strong> \u2013 Much like rolling out cross-ice 8U programs, in my opinion, USA Hockey should put similar efforts into checking training.\u00a0 This could include USA Hockey sanctioned checking clinics (organized at a State level), traveling reps to work with coaches, and dedicated checking clinics for coaches to learn how to teach the skills properly.\u00a0 There could also be a requirement for all Peewee players to go through checking training (or a checking clinic) prior to being allowed to play.<\/p>\n

Make a Minor Change<\/strong> \u2013 Instead of introducing such a drastic measure, along with increased training for coaches, I believe if there were to be one change, it should be to eliminate open ice checking at the U12 (Peewee) level.\u00a0 Often times, these are some of the most dangerous because you have kids who are lacking skill (in checking) attempting to make a big hit.\u00a0 I believe this small change would help (at least a bit) to reduce the number of injuries occurring.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

While I do believe the proposal will make the game safer in some instances, I believe it will actually make it more dangerous in others.\u00a0 I believe the focus needs to be on education of those involved in teaching the skill of checking.\u00a0 I don\u2019t ever want to see a kid hurt, but at the same time, I recognize this is a contact sport.\u00a0 Contact sports carry an inherent risk of injury \u2013 no matter what age level you begin the contact.\u00a0 Assuming this proposal passes, my hope is we\u2019re not taking an issue that currently plagues our sport at the U12 level and simply transplanting it to the U14 level.<\/p>\n

As always, I\u2019d love to hear your comments and opinions on this topic.\u00a0 Please feel free to leave a comment below:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

USA Hockey will vote on a rule change in June, which would move the legal age for body checking from U12 (Peewee) to U14 (Bantam). This rule change has spurred a lot of discussion among coaches debating on whether or not it is the right move. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.hockeyshare.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}