mises en échecs - bodychecking

[lafrak 0]

Body checking: When to start? why? outcome?

I'm an old guy and recently returned to really following hockey. I've a background in hockey (coaching-teaching-administration at local/regional/provincial levels and top-level certification and advanced studies. I have also coached several other sports.

Recently I watched some PeeWee AA games where a team from Ontario ran around looking for someone to hit. They couldn't because the Quebec teams were far too fast, executed faster and won easily. Then I watched some Bantam AA teams from both provinces play each other. Notwithstanding some players with experience in the inappropriately named "AAA" and dangerous spring leagues ( with contact from Atom level - illegal by the way) the Quebec teams, who are theoretically new to hitting, were not "outhit" by the Ontario teams. Although this is a small sample , it got me to thinking about the numerous posts on these forums regarding bodychecking in minor hockey in Quebec, particularly the recent message from Mctru (General theme of this forum)

Pour ce qui est du bodycheck, voici ce que la recherche nous dit.

1- Il y a moins de blessures relatives au contact physique dans le hockey mineur ( peewee, bantam, midget) au Québec que partout ailleurs en Amérique du nord.

2- Le fait d'introduire le contact physique en bas âge ( atome, peewee, bantam, midget) ne crée pas plus de risque de blessures peut importe l'âge du joueur. Le risque demeure le même.

I need further clarification for this point

3-Jeune ou vieux il n'y aura pas plus de risques de blessures.

4-Plus il y a de contacts physiques, plus on augmente le risque de blessures.

5-Il n'y a aucune corrélation positive entre le fait d'introduire les mises en échec en bas âge et la baisse du risque de blessures à un niveau supérieur.

Ceux qui affirment le contraire n'ont pas raison.

Many would argue (a) that bodychecking is part of the game and (b) that the sooner kids learn to play with their heads up, the better. On the contrary, I would argue that (a) it is only part of the professional game and (b) good coaching can teach heads-up hockey without the use of bodychecking.

Why in Quebec do we restrict bodychecking to the Bantam double-letter teams and up? Hockey Quebec wisely , I emphasize "wisely", legislated its bodychecking regulations based on the Neron committee results and other research studies. The rest of Canada may well follow suit because a new position is expected before 2010. Hockey Canada, for now, permits it from Pee Wee and up (and by the way, no team in Canada is allowed any longer to body check at the Atom level). And yet USA medical specialists argue that bodychecking should only be taught to players 15 years of age and older. Canadian sports and fitness specialists argue that bodychecking should be eliminated from all level of minor hockey that are not designed for training for professional and international ranks.

Research shows that introducing bodychecking is associated with a large increase in serious injury rates, particularly concussions with long-term repercussions on the developing brain. Adverse brain-effects are now being recognized decades after the hockey-related concussions . Between 50% and 86% of minor-hockey injuries are the result of bodychecking. As some researchers have said, "Although these injuries are viewed by some as an unfortunate part of a fast and dangerous game, they should not be seen as an inevitable consequence of participation in sport."

So, medical experts say wait! and hockey administrators say no way!, and coaches say let's go! and the unscrupulous say why not?, and parents are divided. Are we F@#$ nuts or what?

 

I can't stress this enough. With good teaching and appropriate lessons, we can effectively teach contact (how to receive and how to legally apply) at an early age (even atom) and we can effectively teach bodychecking at an appropriate age for those who need to learn it -- midget "espoir" and midget AAA and maybe bantam AA as a preparation.

 

At all the other levels we do not need bodychecking and the kids should instead learn, and focus on, the myriad of technical and tactical aspects of the game anyway. Furthermore, being designated "elite" should only be bestowed when it is appropriate and true (over 14 years of age). The truly "elite" kids can be taught bodychecking after their bodies have grown and this type of contact is necessary for them to continue. The rest should learn and enjoy the game. Watch a Bantam A game in Quebec where there is no bodychecking but a lot of incidental contact and where several of the players have learned to play heads up hockey. The game can be beautiful and totally enjoyable by all.

[Bull 0]

Lafrak,

 

Well put , I will rethink my position on this subject .

[lafleur 0]

Several very good points made above.

 

I guess it is how you look at the game of hockey . In terms of what age to start bodychecking, if it is viewed as as a skill set of hockey, then it should be taught in conjunction with the other aspects of stickhandling, skating, passing and shooting.

 

In my opinion we start too late in Quebec. if you watch Bantam, Midget, Espoir and AAA, there is an inordinate amount of checking from behind infractions. These type of infractions are very dangerous.Many of the times it is because the players do not know how to deliver a proper hit.

A second reason is that the oppposing player does not know how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable positions where they are more apt to be hit.

Some coaches do teach that bodychecking is to hurt or intimidate the opposing player. This is not what this skill set is about.The purpose of the players check, is to seperate the opposing player from the puck so that his team can regain possession of the puck as quickly as possible.

At what age is the right one to start teaching this basic skill? 10-12?

For those children or parents that are not comfortable with body contact there is already a very good system in place to play.

 

One of the reasons it is difficult to discuss this issue in this province, is that we do not have a minor/major system for age classification. Presently we have a two year age gap. Until that gets corrected, not much can change.

 

For a safer enviroment for the players, I am more concerned with the age classification, the hitting from behind, and the non calls by officials on any head infractions. (this should be an automatic penalty even if accidental)

 

Other things that we can do, is to look at what age youth football or youth rugby start initiating contact in their sports.

 

No right answers to this, only opinions depending upon how you view the game.

[Le Vrai 0]

Interesting facts, thx. I wouldnt mind seeing the younger kids learn or play with b/c it will definately teach the kids how to keep their heads up a lot more. I am speaking about maybe Atom and up. If you take the sport of footbal, these kids are constantly being hit. Is it a goos thing? I don't know, but they grow accustom to it. I know when americans come up here, they have a field day b/c they hit with a purpose. quebec hittters just hit wrecklessly a lot of the times. I am no expert, but I am very knowledgable about the sport and with the pyschology of kids in sports. A little contact is not that bad. Once again, it was a very interesting article and thx for the info in regards to this topic.