I have been in this game too long to enjoy or participate in ref-bashing, but to be candid, my confidence in their general ability to call 'one-step' checking is not all that high. A few years ago my suggestion to the local youth league was to introduce checking as such: Pee Wee - D team checking in the D Zone only
Bantam - D team checking in D Zone + open ice hitting in the N Zone, not along or into the boards
Midget - allow full contact, however hitting anyone in 'the numbers' at any time, for any reason, is a double minor
This is not to suggest that the above-mentioned is a better idea than 'one-step'. Perhaps a combination of the two concepts might work. Anything is better than going from Squirt No-Hitting to Pee Wee Full Contact; a ruling that can only be made by people who do not understand youth hockey and the incredible size differences that exist.
Pops Ryan
my personal thoughts are no checking should be allowed until 16 years old. From what i have seen in youth games in the US, physical intimidation is demanded by coaches, and the focus is on hitting not to take the puck but to just smash the other player. it seemed hitting was the priority and not passing. to me, it seemed like youth players at the U12 & U14 levels simply panicked and threw away puck when they were under physical pressure. this leads to players not able to focus on making passing combinations and understanding movement away from puck and to use passes to take zones but rather simply throw puck forward to avoid a hit. though its not as bad in most parts of europe, i think the focus should be on the kids learning passing combinations and stickhandling technique without fear of being hit by a player who outweighs them by 25 kilos. feel free to add thoughts to my ideas.
Recently a new study stated that there is a 3x increase in injuries in Pee Wee hockey where hitting is allowed.
My experience in youth hockey is that injuries don't occur because of legal body checking but because of charging and boarding.
A bantam or pee wee player can be +3 or -3 in physical growth. So an 11 year old can be playing vs an early maturing 12 year old who is 15 yrs. in maturity and the small 11 year old is like an 8 year old in growth. In bantam the variation for 13-14 is really 10-17 years in growth.
I believe the answer is to change the rule to one step checking instead of two stides and to call it very strictly. Of course coach training is critical but we all know that some coaches insist on intimidation so much that any amount of coaching isn't going to affect that.
I have 11-14 year olds in my school hockey class and the size difference is incredible and the idea that my biggest student who can really skate is allowed to crush a small player (even though they can also skate well) and the refs pass the charging and boarding off as "tough hockey" needs to be addressed.
I think one step checking should start at the 9-10 year old age; before the testosterone kicks in and allow the players to get used to giving and taking legal body checks would make it safer for everyone. To introduce checking when the size difference is huge and puberty is starting is simply looking for trouble.
The other option is to wait until midget when the size difference isn't as great. (15 yr old minor midget is a great idea in Canada) Some other nations have U17 so midget isn't 3 years.
It is funny how the NHL doesn't have players running around trying to take opponents heads off but the mantra of many minor hockey coaches is to Dump, Chase, Crash and Intimidate.
Thoughts???
'Enjoy the Game'