Mise en échec

[Invité Malcommode]

Beau texte de Lafrak et même si en anglais je crois qu'il est trop intreressant pour le mettre deulement du coté anglais.

 

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)

 

Citer:

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

 

Citer:

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.

[Invité Malcommode]

Pour show, hockey fan et bucks.

[mctru 68]

Je rajouterais CFL

[Invité Malcommode]

Mctru il n'y a rien à faire avec cfl et même hockey fan

[Big_Dunlop 0]

Je rajouterais CFL

Entièrement d`accord ,il est irrécupérable. :wink:

 

Se contente de peu et ne va pas voir plus loin que son nez. :lol: :lol:

 

Big_Dunlop

[mctru 68]

@Lafrak

 

Le point numéro 2 veut dire ceci.

Si on introduit le contact physique, peut importe l'âge du joueur, le risque de blessure demeure le même, que ce soit à 12 ans, 14ans ou 15 ans.

 

Il est faux d'affirmer, comme plusieurs participants l'affirment ici, que si on introduit le contact physique en bas âge, le risque de blessure diminue par la suite. Au contraire, on augmente les risques de blessures en introduisant le contact physique plus jeune. Pourquoi? Parce qu'on ajoute un groupe d'âge qui auparavant jouait sans contact.

CQFD

[Invité marc bellemare]

Je m'aperçois que plusiieurs intervenants parle de ce sujet dans des sujets qui n'ont pas rapport alors je le remets à la première page.