Jump to content

Middle School hockey


Recommended Posts

Thank you sample, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I think you are spot-on with your assessment.  All you see is these panic stricken parents obsess over checking, and there is no need to.  I actually heard several say that once little Johnny ages out of PeeWee's they were going to pull them out of ice and put them in roller hockey just because of the fear of checking!  Yes, it was much better in PeeWee's because they were all small and really couldn't hit hard if they tried.  And don't get me started on the roller hockey douches who are all big tough guys, cause they know they can't get hit!  I agree, USA Hockey will once again go in the wrong direction and take it out of Bantams and put it in Midgets.  That's a steep one-year learning curve for any kid who wants to play Juniors at age 16 for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eddie Shore said:

Thank you sample, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I think you are spot-on with your assessment.  All you see is these panic stricken parents obsess over checking, and there is no need to.  I actually heard several say that once little Johnny ages out of PeeWee's they were going to pull them out of ice and put them in roller hockey just because of the fear of checking!  Yes, it was much better in PeeWee's because they were all small and really couldn't hit hard if they tried.  And don't get me started on the roller hockey douches who are all big tough guys, cause they know they can't get hit!  I agree, USA Hockey will once again go in the wrong direction and take it out of Bantams and put it in Midgets.  That's a steep one-year learning curve for any kid who wants to play Juniors at age 16 for sure.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on checking has changed. I used to have the same view mentioned above that checking should be brought back to Peewee but I've been swayed by the data more recently.

Before I get labelled a softie, I'll give some background.  When I played, body-checking was legal at the peewee age which was ages 12 and 13 back then. I grew up in a small Northern Ontario town, playing on a peewee travel team when I was 12 that played local games (i.e. when not traveling to tourneys) in the bantam house league - which meant I was playing in a body checking league against 15 year olds when I was 12.  My oldest son is now a senior in high school, but played regular shifts on his varsity team as a freshmen, meaning he was going up against players 3 or 4 years older than him then. My youngest is an 05 who just completed his first year of checking without issue.

The point of giving my background is that my stance didn't change due to some fear of my kids reaching body checking age or that I was scared of the unknown as a parent who hasn't played the game before. I learned body checking at a young age (I played competitively at decently high levels through junior hockey until age 21) and both my kids have gone through it.

But, I'm a scientist for my day job and I've recently looked at some of the big studies that have reported how injuries have decreased in peewee hockey players once body contact was removed from that level. Some of these studies have very large datasets and it's pretty convincing. It took awhile to reconcile the data with my own initial thoughts that 'I know how hockey should be played and body checking is vital'.  I won't post the studies here, but you can go to Pubmed website and search body checking youth hockey and bunch will pop up.  Carolyn Emery is an author on a few of the big ones.

So, I'm no longer for bringing body checking back to peewee.  I'm also coming around to getting it out of the lower level leagues. The reality is that the vast majority of youth hockey players are not going to play D1 or high levels of junior hockey, never mind professional hockey beyond that.  They are headed to playing in non-contact beer league hockey and will hopefully get a lot of enjoyment from the game with decades of recreational play.  I see the merit in getting it out of most youth leagues, but body checking would remain in certain leagues for more elite players that are keeping the avenue open for making a career out of it (AAA or high level AA in youth hockey at bantam and above, D1/juniors, professional). There's some issues in how to implement this policy (i.e. how does a kid who isn't playing in a body checking league make the transition to a more elite league if they are a late bloomer), but the data indicates it's the right thing to figure out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Loach said:

My view on checking has changed. I used to have the same view mentioned above that checking should be brought back to Peewee but I've been swayed by the data more recently.

Before I get labelled a softie, I'll give some background.  When I played, body-checking was legal at the peewee age which was ages 12 and 13 back then. I grew up in a small Northern Ontario town, playing on a peewee travel team when I was 12 that played local games (i.e. when not traveling to tourneys) in the bantam house league - which meant I was playing in a body checking league against 15 year olds when I was 12.  My oldest son is now a senior in high school, but played regular shifts on his varsity team as a freshmen, meaning he was going up against players 3 or 4 years older than him then. My youngest is an 05 who just completed his first year of checking without issue.

The point of giving my background is that my stance didn't change due to some fear of my kids reaching body checking age or that I was scared of the unknown as a parent who hasn't played the game before. I learned body checking at a young age (I played competitively at decently high levels through junior hockey until age 21) and both my kids have gone through it.

But, I'm a scientist for my day job and I've recently looked at some of the big studies that have reported how injuries have decreased in peewee hockey players once body contact was removed from that level. Some of these studies have very large datasets and it's pretty convincing. It took awhile to reconcile the data with my own initial thoughts that 'I know how hockey should be played and body checking is vital'.  I won't post the studies here, but you can go to Pubmed website and search body checking youth hockey and bunch will pop up.  Carolyn Emery is an author on a few of the big ones.

So, I'm no longer for bringing body checking back to peewee.  I'm also coming around to getting it out of the lower level leagues. The reality is that the vast majority of youth hockey players are not going to play D1 or high levels of junior hockey, never mind professional hockey beyond that.  They are headed to playing in non-contact beer league hockey and will hopefully get a lot of enjoyment from the game with decades of recreational play.  I see the merit in getting it out of most youth leagues, but body checking would remain in certain leagues for more elite players that are keeping the avenue open for making a career out of it (AAA or high level AA in youth hockey at bantam and above, D1/juniors, professional). There's some issues in how to implement this policy (i.e. how does a kid who isn't playing in a body checking league make the transition to a more elite league if they are a late bloomer), but the data indicates it's the right thing to figure out.

Loach, this is great insight, thank you for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so then what about that kid that is a bubble player, he plays at a lower level for 2 years, the first 2 years checking is allowed.. He missed out on learning and playing a hitting game for 2 years. Then he improves and is now at a level that allows checking, being 2 years behind kids that have been checking for 2 years, that kid is now doomed, he will get his head knocked off.. if you don't want hit or you don't want your kids hit, don't play.. we all are well aware of the risks, hopefully we as adults/parents convey those risks to our kids, as well as the coaches to the kids... no one is forcing anyone at any level to play any sport.. i just don't get it.. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loach said:

But, I'm a scientist for my day job and I've recently looked at some of the big studies that have reported how injuries have decreased in peewee hockey players once body contact was removed from that level. Some of these studies have very large datasets and it's pretty convincing. It took awhile to reconcile the data with my own initial thoughts that 'I know how hockey should be played and body checking is vital'.  I won't post the studies here, but you can go to Pubmed website and search body checking youth hockey and bunch will pop up.  Carolyn Emery is an author on a few of the big ones.

So, I'm no longer for bringing body checking back to peewee.  I'm also coming around to getting it out of the lower level leagues. The reality is that the vast majority of youth hockey players are not going to play D1 or high levels of junior hockey, never mind professional hockey beyond that.  They are headed to playing in non-contact beer league hockey and will hopefully get a lot of enjoyment from the game with decades of recreational play.  I see the merit in getting it out of most youth leagues, but body checking would remain in certain leagues for more elite players that are keeping the avenue open for making a career out of it (AAA or high level AA in youth hockey at bantam and above, D1/juniors, professional). There's some issues in how to implement this policy (i.e. how does a kid who isn't playing in a body checking league make the transition to a more elite league if they are a late bloomer), but the data indicates it's the right thing to figure out.

Thanks for the input.  I appreciate your point of view. 

So, let me ask you a question.  You say that injuries have decreased in PeeWee's once checking was removed, and this makes sense.  However, since it was removed from PeeWee's, what effect did this have on Bantams?  Did it go up?  I would bet it has.  And, if we take checking out of Bantam's, I am am sure injuries will go down there, but I would also assume it will go up in Midgets.  My point is, the longer you delay the learning process, the worse the effect will be in the older age groups (you are just creating a snowball effect), it will go up and get worse due to larger, stronger players not knowing the correct way to play.  Your plan would also create a barrier to development for any kid that wants to take up hockey after PeeWee's.  A kid is going to play house league (or even single A under your plan) 1st year Bantam (which is non-checking), then says, "mom i want to tryout for PPE".  What happens then?  All I hear on this board is that, "my kid wanted to give PPE a shot, so I said yes".  How bad are they going to do coming from a non-checking league, going up against players who have been playing at a high level, and have been checking!  That's just a tryout nightmare waiting to happen.  I do respect your opinion, and I am all for a non-checking house league (if that's what the kid wants to do).  However, we all know that this discussion is not about what the kids want at all.  Thanks for input though, appreciate the point of view.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Eddie Shore "the longer you delay the learning process, the worse the effect will be in the older age groups (you are just creating a snowball effect), it will go up and get worse due to larger, stronger players not knowing the correct way to play."

That is the best quote on this topic that I have read on this entire thread.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Eddie Shore said:

Thanks for the input.  I appreciate your point of view. 

So, let me ask you a question.  You say that injuries have decreased in PeeWee's once checking was removed, and this makes sense.  However, since it was removed from PeeWee's, what effect did this have on Bantams?  Did it go up?  I would bet it has.  And, if we take checking out of Bantam's, I am am sure injuries will go down there, but I would also assume it will go up in Midgets.  My point is, the longer you delay the learning process, the worse the effect will be in the older age groups (you are just creating a snowball effect), it will go up and get worse due to larger, stronger players not knowing the correct way to play.  Your plan would also create a barrier to development for any kid that wants to take up hockey after PeeWee's.  A kid is going to play house league (or even single A under your plan) 1st year Bantam (which is non-checking), then says, "mom i want to tryout for PPE".  What happens then?  All I hear on this board is that, "my kid wanted to give PPE a shot, so I said yes".  How bad are they going to do coming from a non-checking league, going up against players who have been playing at a high level, and have been checking!  That's just a tryout nightmare waiting to happen.  I do respect your opinion, and I am all for a non-checking house league (if that's what the kid wants to do).  However, we all know that this discussion is not about what the kids want at all.  Thanks for input though, appreciate the point of view.

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sample39 said:

Eddie, I think removing body checking at 12U has amplified the parent paranoia, and in some areas hindered the kids development.  I understand the thought process behind removing it 8 or so years ago, but respectfully disagree with it.  It's better for players to learn and acclimate themselves to body-checking at a younger age, where both first and second year players are still relatively small.  At bantam, the size discrepancy is much larger.  You can have a first year player at 4'11 and 85lbs go up against a second year player who is 5'10 and 160lbs.  That's the nature of bantam hockey.  When you factor in the first year player having no experience with checking, specifically lacking good habits to properly protect themselves, then things can get dangerous.  They should consider reintroducing body-checking back into 12U, however, I fear they're more likely to remove it from 14U.  

And now thanks to USA Hockey, we can't bang the boards to let the 4'11" kid know that the hit is coming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lifelongbender said:

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.

 

Yes, thanks - that was one of the studies I was mentioning.  There was a period of time of where Quebec had taken hitting out of peewee while other provinces such as Alberta kept it in at peewee. Emery did a large study of injuries (over 1000 players in each province) and found that injuries were 3-fold less in peewee in Quebec (no body contact) and the injury rate in bantam in Quebec was about the same as it what it was in peewee in Alberta, which is what LLB summarized above.  If you want to see some of these studies, here they are:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186037 (original study comparing Quebec to Alberta when they had different body checking ages)

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/24/1767.long   (looks at the change specific to Alberta after they moved checking to bantam)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153513/ (looks at whether introducing body checking at younger ages lessens injuries compared to older ages)

 

I had the chance to go to the Summit on Hockey: Action on Concussion that was held at the Mayo Clinic in 2017 (https://ce.mayo.edu/sports-medicine/content/mayo-clinic-sports-medicine-ice-hockey-summit-iii-action-concussion-2017#group-tabs-node-course-default2)

I saw a lot of this data (and much more) presented and discussed and alot of the USA Hockey bigwigs were there.  That's when I started to change my mind. The take-home message of the summit was to try and eliminate body checking from non-elite hockey levels.  I already mentioned that there are difficulties with that in terms of the bubble players, which rock mentioned.  I don't have an easy solution for that.  But, based on the Summit, I came away thinking that body checking was going to eventually get weaned out at lower levels, and I think we are starting to see that now.

As a scientist, I've tried to just look at the data rather than going with what I think based on just how it has always been done.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying LLB, and I would not go back in time and take body checking out of my youth hockey playing days so I've struggled with this.  Even though I got diagnosed with two official concussions and probably had a few more undiagnosed, I still miss the thrill of laying a good hit when I'm playing in the beer league that I'm currently in. I'm not advocating removing body checking from NHL, AHL/ECHL, College or AAA programs.

But, I was at a house game in the spring and watched a couple of bigger kids taking runs at a couple of smaller kids that were clearly relative beginners to the game. And it really hit me as what is really the point in having body checking at this level? Seemed pointless and there was the rare hit that actually served the purpose of causing a turn-over with the puck. It was pretty ridiculous to watch to be honest and I couldn't really come up with a good reason for why body checking should be allowed in a league like this beyond this is just the way it is.

I think if you kept body-checking at AAA and the top AA divisions in a league like PAHL, it would work. We played a Toronto 2005 team (AA division) last year that played in a non-body-checking league there but played body checking in a tourney with us in Detroit.  They seemed to adapt fine and I was actually pretty impressed with their team. I think kids who are bubble kids cut from AA teams would adapt fine after a couple of weeks if they make it the following year.  Bubble cuts for AAA could play in the body checking AA league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loach said:

I get what you are saying LLB, and I would not go back in time and take body checking out of my youth hockey playing days so I've struggled with this.  Even though I got diagnosed with two official concussions and probably had a few more undiagnosed, I still miss the thrill of laying a good hit when I'm playing in the beer league that I'm currently in. I'm not advocating removing body checking from NHL, AHL/ECHL, College or AAA programs.

But, I was at a house game in the spring and watched a couple of bigger kids taking runs at a couple of smaller kids that were clearly relative beginners to the game. And it really hit me as what is really the point in having body checking at this level? Seemed pointless and there was the rare hit that actually served the purpose of causing a turn-over with the puck. It was pretty ridiculous to watch to be honest and I couldn't really come up with a good reason for why body checking should be allowed in a league like this beyond this is just the way it is.

I think if you kept body-checking at AAA and the top AA divisions in a league like PAHL, it would work. We played a Toronto 2005 team (AA division) last year that played in a non-body-checking league there but played body checking in a tourney with us in Detroit.  They seemed to adapt fine and I was actually pretty impressed with their team. I think kids who are bubble kids cut from AA teams would adapt fine after a couple of weeks if they make it the following year.  Bubble cuts for AAA could play in the body checking AA league.

Call me a cynic, but here is how I see it happening.  They will take it out of the lower levels, then a few years later some spoiled Little Johnny is going to come along and get cut from a team and Loud Mouth Hockey Mom is going to pitch a fit that it is unfair because her kid is being unfairly discriminated against and is going to cause such a stink that they are going to do away with it for everyone.  Sorry to be such a downer, it's just that parents ruin everything eventually.

 

Edited by Eddie Shore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rock said:

parents may ruin a lot, but that's a valid argument.. 

 

I have to disagree.  If there are parents out there that are so concerned about an injury that "might" happen to their kid, then don't let them play.  Or, create your own league with no checking, or have them play roller hockey, but don't make all of us follow your rules.  But, that's not the way we do things anymore.  Some people think that something is too dangerous, so the rest of the world has to follow their rules.  My son was old enough and began checking as a PeeWee, I was fine with it and so was he.  Could he have gotten hurt?  Sure.  Has he gotten hurt? Yes, but checking didn't have anything to do with it.  Sorry to come across like a jerk, but I feel we are slowly destroying the sport. I never wanted to see anyone get hurt, but it happens.  Sometimes it because of checking and sometimes it's not.  So, once we taking checking out, what's next?  Don't say nothing, because there will always be something else to take away from the game.  Eventually, it will be something you disagree with.  Then, you will know how some of the rest of us feel.  Just glad my kid is done after this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i completely agree with you, i guess i miss understood your first comment, i was thinking that "little johnny" gets cut cause he missed out on hitting for a couple years, cause they removed it from lower levels and now he cant make a higher cause he isn't ready to hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  So, I want my son to play contact hockey.  Well, he can't play single A cause it's no contact.  So, he plays AA or AAA.  Then a few years later in Midgets all of a sudden some kid doesn't make the team, and it's unfair cause he has been play 2-hand touch hockey all is life, and now we have to change!  Like I said, kids can get hurt anywhere, and taking checking out does decrease the likely hood, but it will never be fully eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to nitpick, but I think it is important to make sure we are on the same page here.  Body Contact is legal in all levels if USA hockey - Mites -> Midget and all Girls levels.  Body checking is not allowed below Bantam level or in any Girls classification.

Having said that, I have seen squirt and peewee hockey with a tremendous amount of body contact.  It's all about angling and trying to take the puck away, not deliver a huge hit.  It's really fun to watch.  As I have seen this progress through the system in the last  few years, it has changed the way Midgets play.  You see lots of big hits, but generally they are clean and the players are quickly moving to  gain the puck after the hit.

Personally, I think bantam is probably the right level to move from body contact to body checking.  The bantam level is when the majority have the body awareness, body control, peripheral vision and mental processing ability to handle checking in a safe manner.  The key is that the kids have to have good body contact skills taught to them prior to moving to checking. 

I think the case can be made that checking at the Bantam B and maybe even Midget B should be limited.  When I watch those levels, the kids just don't have the skating skills and body control to handle the hitting.  I could go either way on this one.  

Final thought, parents are worried about checking.  Now more so than ever before due to all the emphasis on concussions.  No way around it.  If they are pulling their kids from hockey, football, lacrosse and even soccer when body contact gets "too rough" then the governing bodies need to react to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...