Author Topic: Elimination of checking?  (Read 3246 times)

TheFourthA

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • LR Justice +5/-2
Elimination of checking?
« on: January 08, 2019, 12:45:05 PM »
Apparently, USA hockey will be considering the removal of checking from some [size=78%]or all of 14u hockey at its winter meetings next week.  Anyone have any hard information about the options that are on the table?[/size]

TheFourthA

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • LR Justice +5/-2
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2019, 01:26:15 PM »
Sorry can’t cut and paste it right now  but the agenda actually refers to five options for checking.  That sounds like a fairly focused discussion.

SkatingDad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • LR Justice +46/-68
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2019, 12:17:43 PM »
If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.

Rats13

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • LR Justice +11/-0
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2019, 12:23:32 PM »
If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.


Definitely in Edmonton non-check for levels below A/B  which would seem to be the equal to in-house here.

InDZone

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • LR Justice +4/-2
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2019, 01:17:06 PM »

That makes sense...no checking for in-house would be ideal....for travel I think that at 14 and up there should not be an issue. I would hope that since it's travel the teams are being prepared and taught how to give and receive a hit...just as much of what type of situation to pull out of to avoid those issues.

If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.


Definitely in Edmonton non-check for levels below A/B  which would seem to be the equal to in-house here.

area51

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • LR Justice +76/-46
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2019, 09:22:32 AM »
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better

Bear71

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • LR Justice +31/-9
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2019, 12:48:47 PM »
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better


More kids playing the sport the better, until there isn't any ice available for your team when you need it.  Irvine is a start, but you can't grow the sport without the facilities.

Hockey sophist

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • LR Justice +29/-50
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2019, 05:05:18 PM »
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better


More kids playing the sport the better, until there isn't any ice available for your team when you need it.  Irvine is a start, but you can't grow the sport without the facilities.

It is bad enough that Bantams (8th and 9th graders) practice at 8 or 9 pm and get home at 10 or 11 pm.    Good point about scarcity of ice time.    Non-checking travel may have a place in the menu of teenage sports but it would be equivalent to slow pitch softball in high school or 7 man high school flag football.   Doesn't JV high school hockey fill that niche?    Good teams that focus on speed and passing don't need to check heavily so let's put the emphasis on those virtues rather than trying to rewrite the rules of the game.

Nowhearthis

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • LR Justice +20/-11
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2019, 02:07:15 AM »
Ice time seems to be opening up.  KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.

lcadad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • LR Justice +110/-99
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2019, 03:10:56 PM »
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better


This could be easily accomplished if there was demand for it.  There are in-house leagues that operate at numerous rinks.  Most of these leagues have a handful of teams at age group - anywhere from 2 -4.  If they wanted to organize things so that teams played each other across the leagues, that could certainly be accomplished, but there is apparently very little demand for it.  Many people choose to have their kids in in-house leagues precisely because it's local to them, a minimal investment and doesn't involve any travel.  Depending on the age group and season, it's also not unusual for travel players to play in some of these leagues.


In house does matriculate kids up into Travel hockey but the no-check aspect is more a function of the rinks wanting to make a profit on the leagues and at the same time minimize their risk and any other baggage that might come along with checking rather than something being marketed as an alternative to travel hockey.


So in summary, for people calling for no-check/house league options, they already exist and have for as long as we've been participating in the socal hockey scene.

lcadad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • LR Justice +110/-99
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2019, 03:41:05 PM »
Ice time seems to be opening up.  KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.


So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey?  So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota.   No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.

Hockey sophist

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • LR Justice +29/-50
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2019, 04:16:25 PM »
Ice time seems to be opening up.  KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.


So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey?  So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota.   No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.
Icadad, you raise an important question for parents of Bantam players.   Why would parents spend so much money to get their player ready to compete at a high level of Bantam play and beyond only to see the options dry up.    2x1 hour practice and a 20 game season is an absurd payoff for all the travel and expense of ice hockey.    We do not want to send our son to prep school outside of CA but if he is to continue to develop, it may be the only option.    He loves hockey and he and his best friend, on another team, were just assessing their future in CA hockey and coming away discouraged.   There must be other options????

Nowhearthis

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • LR Justice +20/-11
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2019, 02:05:35 PM »
I get your lament.  The options situation has not changed much in 10 years for the sole focused players.  But to get a good number of games you have to enter tournaments.  Your example of Bantam - AAA has 6 games so far, AA's have had only 13.   So the point is that a 20 game HS season is an improvement and is typically augmented  by a couple or more tournaments and scrimmages to bring the count to over 30 games.  Many feel that this is plenty for high school where their child also participates in the many other important weekend activities or sports which do not have even half that game count.

Pop

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • LR Justice +7/-9
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2019, 06:54:56 AM »
Ice time seems to be opening up.  KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.


So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey?  So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota.   No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.
Icadad, you raise an important question for parents of Bantam players.   Why would parents spend so much money to get their player ready to compete at a high level of Bantam play and beyond only to see the options dry up.    2x1 hour practice and a 20 game season is an absurd payoff for all the travel and expense of ice hockey.    We do not want to send our son to prep school outside of CA but if he is to continue to develop, it may be the only option.    He loves hockey and he and his best friend, on another team, were just assessing their future in CA hockey and coming away discouraged.   There must be other options????

I hear East coast prep school as a option for moving kids to a higher level.  Besides the kids that went to Shattick, What CA kid playing currently playing for a D1 program has taken the east coast prep school route to get there? 

Hockey05

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • LR Justice +57/-32
Re: Elimination of checking?
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2019, 12:50:30 PM »
I get your lament.  The options situation has not changed much in 10 years for the sole focused players.  But to get a good number of games you have to enter tournaments.  Your example of Bantam - AAA has 6 games so far, AA's have had only 13.   So the point is that a 20 game HS season is an improvement and is typically augmented  by a couple or more tournaments and scrimmages to bring the count to over 30 games.  Many feel that this is plenty for high school where their child also participates in the many other important weekend activities or sports which do not have even half that game count.


A simple step but not a solution is to get California kids more games.  I'm not sure why minor AAA teams aren't offered the SCAHA scrimmage games anymore and are forced to find their games out of state or to arrange a few scrimmages.  Also letting the flights scrimmage each other as part of SCAHA.  The biggest issue CAHA has is the loss of players at the upper age groups.  IMO, this is due to having a competitive place to play, convenience and costs. It is also due to education.   
If you have 60-90, 2002's and 2003's that have left California then there is a big drop in the talent pool at both AAA & AA.
As I understand it all roads usually go through juniors.  Most kids that go to prep are going to have to go the Jr route.  Even if the player stays in CA through high school and then goes to prep for the extra year instead of straight to juniors. 
If the system stays the same I look for a club or two to potentially forego CAHA AAA and consider to just to do it on there own if that is possible.  What do you get out of it besides a few games against teams that you can scrimmage anyway.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 12:34:34 AM by Hockey05 »