Lifelongbender

If that's the roster for the team, I see a few pretty strong players on there, too. Wouldn't be surprised if it was very expensive, though.

Seconded!

So is this all part of a larger question about whether kids should be allowed to play contact sports at all? I mean, hockey seems on the surface to be less damaging to the body than, for instance, football. What about the issues with repeated blows to the head from heading the ball in soccer? Where is the proper balance between the physical play that is such a big part of the sport we all love and protection against injuries? For my part, checking is a substantial part of the game and it is worth the risk of injuries to those who choose to play it. However, I also believe that there are a great many coaches - probably the vast majority, actually - who spend little time on teaching fundamentally correct checking. There are also plenty (though, I think, fewer) who passively encourage needlessly violent and/or dirty hits by not responding to their players when they see those hits. There are organizations in every city famous for not teaching checking properly. I think checking is important, but I also think we as coaches and parents need to do a far better job of teaching the hows (and, crucially, WHYs) of checking, and enforcing good sportsmanship and respect for the opposing players. The inevitable end result is going to be phasing out checking for all but the elite players. This writing is on the wall. We all play in beer leagues, where body checking is illegal, and we all know that hockey is still an awesome game in non-checking environments, but I still think that eliminating body checking for most youth players will be a sad outcome. (Again, my inner biases at work.)

Actually, when I heard that PAHL might be considering making a change along the lines of eliminating more body checking, I did a bunch of research about it. Most of the research on this has been conducted, unsurprisingly, by Canadian universities. This quote is from one of the studies I found (and yes, I admit it's just one study, but their findings were typical): "It has been posited that learning to body check at a younger age might somehow protect players from injuries related to body checking at older ages. The literature, however, does not support this (McPherson, Rothman & Howard, 2006). A further comparison between Bantam minor hockey players from Quebec (no previous body checking experience) and Alberta (2 years of body checking experience) revealed a similar rate of injury in both groups in their first year of Bantam (Emery and Kang et al., 2011; McLaughlin, 2011). In addition, the rates of injury for the Bantam players in Quebec were similar to those of the Alberta players in their first year of body checking, suggesting that regardless of when body checking is introduced there will be a spike in injuries sustained. In a breakdown of injuries sustained, there was no difference between the groups in terms of concussions, severe injury or severe concussions. Contrary to common misconceptions, introducing body checking at an older age (Bantam) when players are larger, faster, and size discrepancies may be greater does not result in significantly increased rates of injury nor does it result in more severe injury." Both set of emphases were bold in the original text. Note that, at the time the report was produced, PeeWees were permitted to body check in Alberta, but in Quebec body checking started at Bantams. The full report is available here: https://www.hockeycalgary.ca/assets/file/BC Final Report.pdf Now, in my my heart I actually agree with the logic that starting body checking earlier makes for more prepared players, as I argued above, but it appears from the data that injuries as a whole are not affected by starting earlier (or later, for that matter). I admit that I find these results entirely non-intuitive, but that's what the report prepared for Hockey Calgary found from the data. It's a complex issue. I honestly can't help but wonder if my own beliefs on this are skewed entirely by my experiences and biases on it.

Eddie, I know a good number of parents who took this step, too. What a shame.

They're banning body checking for lower level players - in our area, comparable to B and probably some of our A minor players - at the bantam and even midget level all across Canada. See this for some background: https://globalnews.ca/news/5281991/bodychecking-minor-hockey-regina-saskatoon/ For the record, I heard that there was talk in a few PAHL meetings last year about experimenting with eliminating body checking for B teams in this area. I guess it was tabled. Personally, I believe that body checking is a vital part of the game. While I'd agree that there can be some debate about what age checking should be introduced, it seems to me that if you're going to permit body checking at any age/level, you've got to introduce it early enough that kids can get ready for it before they're JV players. At that time it's entirely too late, in my view. Just by way of example, our local JV team has a player who is in 10th grade this season, is 6'3" and almost 220 lb. If he lines up a Freshman who is on the early side of the BY, it's possible that you could have a kid that size who's been playing checking hockey for three years, two at the JV level, hitting a kid who was only just introduced to checking. At this age level the size differences are enormous in some cases and a kid that big could be hitting a 5'6", 150lb forward who hasn't really been extensively prepared for it. That just feels wrong to me. People will say that there are serious size differences in peewee, and argue that checking should be restricted there for that reason, but my thought is that the varying level of experience with hitting is a serious problem at the first year or two, and in JV/Varsity it's entirely possible to find seniors who've been playing full contact checking hockey for five or six years on the ice with kids who have less than a year experience with it. That strikes me as worse than a big peewee hitting a small one. If they're going to allow full contact checking in high school hockey, then restricting it to bantams makes little sense to me. And now that I am reading sample39's post, it seems to me that I just long-windedly restated his position. But I spent all this time typing, so I'm going to post it anyway!

There is no body checking, but as Jack Handey noted above, most of the players are bantams who body check in amateur hockey. U12 parents whose players want to play middle school have to sign a waiver because of this. My son played middle school in sixth grade, but that was a few years ago and things have changed.

"Western PA does not need anymore closing rinks." Exactly right.

And probably also significantly lessen the hostility.

I'd seen that, and heard it, too, but someone who is in a position to know told me what I said above. Of course, until we see what happens in reality it's all speculation and rumor. In any case there is no good way to get vehicles into, or out of, the complex in any number, like what would happen at the end of a game/practice slot, either. It's a cool old building, but I personally can't see any way they can make it work with the neighborhood. Be happy to play there, I guess, but I just have my doubts.

It is still intended to happen, but no date has been set for breaking ground. At one point there was talk about putting some parking under roof there since the building is really huge, but that has apparently been nixed. As of now it seems they are thinking that parking will have to happen in local garages and on the streets. Not only will parking be a nightmare, but I have to think the local residents are going to come to hate the rink because of these issues. The closest garage is actually across the busway, and also serves the Whole Foods complex.

Yes! Thank you Paul. And, just for the record, it is easily possible to ignore posters and never see their posts at all.

I second Marianne Watkins - she's tough but still easy to work with. I've had players have good success with Mark Chaves, who usually has classes at Mt. Lebanon. Great for edgework improvement.

Every year I have a bout of depression when hockey season ends and I'm not going to the rink fur times a week to coach youth players. My son is a midget this year so this may be my last season of coaching him myself - he my just switch to HS hockey - but I hear what you are saying. People ask me how I can spend so much time on it, and all I can say is that I spend four hours a week with each of my kids doing something we both love. It's still getting WAY too expensive to put a kid on the ice, even at ordinary amateur levels. But it's worth it for me and my family.

The truth is, as the article mentions, that hockey is becoming steadily more expensive at all levels for many reasons. Even some house teams play in, and sometimes travel to, multiple tournaments every year, and there are clinics, equipment, and other costs out the wazoo. It's very easy for a frugal parent to feel like they're shorting their kid if they don't cough up for all of it. And in the case of tournaments, it's hard to say no if your kid is one of 13 skaters on a typical squirt team. In my view the cost of amateur hockey of all kinds is becoming far too high, but fixing that is a Herculean task.

I had exactly this same thought.

That particular statistic did make me wonder a bit. Seems like I'm in the wrong business if that's the case.

The western PA region has been becoming more and more saturated with "AAA" organizations over the past decade or so. A substantial percentage of the discussion on this board is about them. I have my own opinions on the phenomenon, but this article is a useful perspective for players and parents. To those who choose to play at those higher levels, you have my respect. Neither of my players is at that level. JV and/or varsity will be just fine for us. My kids would've considered playing for one, too, if they were that level of player. Just some much needed perspective. https://thehockeythinktank.com/2019/03/26/the-cost-of-aaa-hockey/

Wonderful! Wonderful.

Holy cow can we stop paying attention to the trolls on this board and talk some hockey? This used to be a useful forum for conversation and information but in the past few months it has degenerated into adolescent name calling. It can't have missed everyone's attention that actually useful discussion has almost totally ceased on the whole forum.

I can speak for the Marianne Watkins-run development program at RMU. For several years I went to these clinics for extra ice time and to enjoy the scrimmages they ran at the end. They're good programs,

I always take my skates and my kids' skates to Perani's, too, but Rich mentioned above is probably the guy I hear mentioned most by people who go a specialist.

They've been using this rule for years at the development camps in the USA, and several minor leagues have experimented with it. Based on that experience, USA Hockey believes that it has a positive effect on play for the affected players. Note that the rule does not apply to high school and above, professional, and adult leagues. Personally I don't think that it hurts the game at all. After all, players at the levels affected can change on an icing, so it basically gives you a free change in exchange for a defensive zone faceoff. Since you're killing a penalty, presumably you have your best defensive group out for that faceoff, and you can put your players in optimal positions to defend. I do not consider an icing call while killing penalties the worst outcome. Frankly I like the change because it means more puck work for the players; if I'm on offense it gives me more of a shot to generate offensive zone time, and if I'm on defense it encourages me to possess the puck and try to make a play. As a bonus, it also encourages players to try to stay out of the box because it makes penalties even more difficult to kill. I encourage my players to ice the puck if they don't have a skating lane or a clear pass. In the end it isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. There are many who disagree with me. For my part, I think that most people who criticize the change fall into the "don't like change" or "that's not how the NHL plays it" camps. I don't find either of these viewpoints convincing in and of themselves. I am always interested in reasoned criticisms of the rules, though - for me they are educational.

Agreed. I heard this from a parent I consider reliable. I can't verify that's what they ended up doing. This kind of stupidity should be met with appropriate sanctions, including forfeit of games. No question about it.

There were enough suspensions resulting that PAHL had to split the suspensions up over weekends, so half the kids on each team will be suspended one weekend and half the next. I know a family who had a player in that game for SHAHA, and the parents said that the officials were reduced to a process of elimination to identify the players fighting because of the mayhem. Apparently PAHL didn't spend much time reviewing the video at the hearing, either, at least according to this parent. They felt that the penalties on both teams were excessive. All second hand, but from a reliable source whose player was part of the game.