A Great Game, With or Without Hitting

Comments

[Xander]

Well I agree with you, but I have two points which I would think of.

First, instead of simply banning body checking at one age point, then having it at another. Maybe it would be a better idea to have some sort of phased implimentation of it. That way children who are progressing can learn how to hit, and be hit in phases rather than simply all of a sudden being exposed to it.

Secondly, the two streams do seem interesting. But is it really feasible with the increasing rink fee's we are seeing in Toronto? When you split the amount of people going to each game even further in lessens the base which means that parents in the end are going to end up paying more. Is that a good idea?

[Willbur]

I actually agree with this proposal. There is no need for house level players to hit, what is the point? The only players that should have body contact are those that are playing in any kind of rep level hockey and maybe only in AA or better.

I don't think you can have two side by side levels though. Minor hockey is already expensive enough without another level.
Bodychecking in rep leagues but not house level.

[Noam Sugarman]

I think the idea of having two streams is intriguing. I worry, however, that creating a non-hitting elite stream would be sewing the seeds of an anti-hitting in all of hockey lobby, including the NHL. For if we find ourselves with cohort after cohort of fantastic 16 year-old hockey players who do not want to hit but are good enough to play junior, some parents could start exerting pressure on the CHL and other junior leagues to ease up on the hitting so their skilled kids can play. It takes little imaginative effort to see where that could lead.

And yes, I agree with you, the game can be incredibly fun to play without hitting, and not even that bad to watch. I remember once wandering into a community centre to buy bus tickets and seeing a high-level rec league game being played, and not being able to pull myself away despite the absence of hitting. But still, as a spectator sport hitting adds a certain spice to the game, a whole new dimension increases the drama and always makes you wonder if you're making a mistake by turning off the TV lest you miss something great, even if the game is a blowout (the exact same point applies to fighting and 'roughhousing' in general; I've never been so into a leafless playoffs as I am this year). So hopefully a decision is made carefully.

[Scott Stokes]

If this was tangible then why is the arena empty when girl's hockey playoffs arrive. Most father's find this brand of hockey equivalent to swimming lessons or dance class. (boring)
I'm fascinated with this view of hockey losing it's physical appeal is somehow a great step towards intellectual enlightenment. Please, as a dad of two boy's playing hockey, then what would be the appeal. Their is so many sports and recreational events competing for young athletes attention, why would hockey want to shoot itself in the foot.
In my city their is already a non-competitive , non-contact league that others play at their leisure. The strength element and physical competitiveness is hockey's current appeal, to test young men going into man hood. Otherwise my sons would just find another sport to have fun testing their moxie and keeping their interest in the sport Dad/Grandpa played.

[Dave So]

Noam:

If an elite pay for play league ever emerged, it would really be up to the players to dictate whether or not it would survive, and what's wrong with that? Yes, it's the fans who sit back and enjoy the sport, but it's the athletes that are out there sacrificing their bodies for it. I don't think that this would be the same issue as fighting where it's the fans putting the pressure to ban it/put an end to it.

In terms of the hitting, a league may emerge where elite players can earn a decent living playing in it, and it would be up to the players to decide which way they'd rather play... Eventually if it goes on long enough, there's definitely the possibility that the current NHL could fold due to enough of the players going to a non-contact elite league, but this would take a long time to happen (I don't think it would happen in my lifetime), and it would be the players' decision as a group to allow it to happen. The fans would either accept it or not.

[Noam Sugarman]

Dave: There's nothing wrong with it at all, if it's a hockey decision made by hockey people. There is something wrong if it is a result of parents projecting their fears onto their kids. And if a professional, non-contact league does emerge because players prefer to play that way, then there is really nothing to be said about it. But I highly doubt that will happen, unless pressure starts being put by parents on junior leagues to allow their non-contact kids to play. All that being said, I think it would take a lot to take hitting out of hockey, and hopefully it will not happen in my lifetime.

[Patrick Louch]

As read in the Hockey Canada Rule Book, it is illegal to hit a player "with violence" into the boards (Boarding). It is also illegal to hit a player after taking "one or more strides" (Charging). It is also illegal to hit with elbows, or hands (Elbowing and Roughing), and yet these violations continue in all levels of hockey.

I reffed for four years and I'd attempt to get it under control, but the hitting culture is so ingrained and the brains of hockey players so closed and spoiled that after barreling through a kid's face his with his forearm I'd get an incredulous "what?" from the player - as if that was acceptable behaviour. And from the parents in the stands "that's just the way he hits!". And from the coach "we're just upset this is the fifth time this year he's got that penalty" ("Checking to the Head"). And you know what? They were upset with me for debasing the "beautiful, good, clean hit". Players are taught to hit by idiot coaches who were never taught to hit themselves

Body checking per se is not a problem, but the illegal hits are rampant, and as far as Bob Nicholson should be concerned, inexcusable. It's these illegal hits that are causing injury and disgust.

[Noam Sugarman]

Patrick, here's something that's lost on many of the game's critics. One of the most amazing and unavoidable things about hockey - unless we replace the referees with super computers - is that in spite of the rules, there are going to be borderline plays, incidences, and above all, missed calls. And these things make professional hockey all the more exciting to watch, for it is what lends it its intensity. Some may complain about the extraneous roughness of this year's playoffs, but it is a symptom of genuine dislike between teams, which is how rivalries are created. And I think we can all agree that great rivalries are what make great sports.

That being said, this mentality should not apply to youth hockey, where kids ought to be taught the game: shooting, passing, stickhandling, and yes, proper bodychecking. So yes, it may be inexcusable for improper bodychecking to be tolerated in youth hockey, but borderline hits motivated by aggression more than defense or offense make the game great, and are a big part of why I'm going to be watching close to six hours of hockey tonight.