Reply To: Body Checking in Youth Hockey

[hockeygod]

Tom,

Funny you mention Donny (my next door neighbour). The fact you 'bumped into him' at a Timmy's… classic! What are you guys; retired cops or teachers?!

I was at Easter dinner yesterday when my cousin, who also knows Donny, told me he saw Donny on TV last week talking about the discussion surrounding the proposal. My cousin said Donny came across as being pretty adamant against the proposal. I have yet to talk to Donny myself (he has been away lots this last month; he has been home since Saturday now) but will probably see him depending on if he gets assigned some playoff games.

As per my original post in the "Article" thread when this thing was first announced a couple of weeks ago, the day this announcement / press conference occurred, I was accosted by many people in the rinks that day, all airing their opinions to me and asking me what "I was going to do about it" as it seemed the most vocal people were those AGAINST removing body checking from Pee Wee.

To be honest, I didn't care one way or another. However, looking at the concussion studies from Quebec and Alberta, I think I am in favour of the removal. After coaching female hockey for many years, I actually like their game better as it puts more emphasis on pure skill (skating, puck control, etc.) and encourages angling and bumping along the boards.

Ultimately, I think the male side may go this way in due time due to the risks of injury and concussion. I have heard that minor football is teetering on it's deathbed; I have heard discussions within the Calgary Board and Catholic Board (and this is apparently stretching across all the Boards in Canada) saying that the inherent risk and liability potential of football in the school system may mean it will be removed. Ditto for bantam football. If the 'base' goes, it will eventually impact Junior, University and pro football in a matter of years.

Unless hockey (and Lacrosse, etc.) clean up their respective acts, all of these sports may soon find there will not be an insurance company in existence that will 1) provide AFFORDABLE coverage (the problem that is beginning to rear it's head now) or 2) ANY COVERAGE!

Back to the the topic at hand – checking in Pee Wee or not.

After hearing the new ruling would only apply to the levels at Div 4 and below, I thought that was an even better idea. Less coaches who would need to be trained… because 1) 'we' (Certification Organizations – Hockey Canada / Hockey Alberta / Hockey Calgary – so all levels – are doing a piss-poor job of providing GOOD training 2) BEFORE the season starts 3) to ALL STAKEHOLDERS – including the players and coaches!

I thought it was a 'done deal' already due to what I heard from the press releases, the people at the rink and on the radio.

I was in meetings at Hockey Canada all that weekend and I brought the topic up. The people at Hockey Canada felt it was strange that Hockey Calgary would do a press release and hold a press conference to say 'we are thinking about changing to no body checking'; which it turns out, is what is happening. So it isn't 'a done deal'. We got so involved in talking about why Hockey Calgary would go to these extreme steps to broadcast a non-event, we actually didn't talk about what Hockey Canada thought…

Tom, I really like your interpretation even more. And the fact that it would carry on into higher levels too. Bantam, Minor Midget, and Midget. I think this is a great version and I hope you convinced Donny! Maybe you need to make a phone call to the president of minor hockey?

My reservations remain. 1) Provide GOOD TRAINING 2) DO IT IN A TIMELY FASHION (before the season starts) 3) FOR BOTH THE PLAYERS AND COACHES!

It must be mandatory. Kids and coaches need to be properly equipped prior to tryouts so everyone feels comfortable.

Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."