By Karen Aney (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: February 1, 2012
Though lacrosse is Canada’s national sport, hockey has much more clout in most circles. Canada has long been the home of predominate players in the NHL: we’ve produced the Great One, Sid the Kid, the Rocket, and so many more. However, this tradition may soon be diminished, as leagues across Canada have begun to intercede in game play in the name of safety. Following an increasing trend, the Pacific Coast Amateur Hockey Association (PCAHA) made the decision to ban body checking in every tier for ages 5-19 outside of the representative—highest—league.
The PCAHA encompasses hockey leagues from Hope to the Sunshine Coast: that’s a lot of hockey. The problem with this blanket ban is that it’s extremely short-sighted. The move almost seems on-trend with the media buzz surrounding head injuries in the NHL. Yes, head injuries are terrible—we’re just beginning to understand how terrible, in fact—but banning body checking in hockey is not the answer. In fact, banning body checking in hockey could very well be the antithesis of making the game safer.
Look at it logically. It’s a game played on ice, with blades strapped to boots, a hunk of rubber designed to move quickly, and boards barricading the playing surface. At the very least, two people skating towards the boards for a puck is going to result in minimal contact. That’s not something that can change, and asking players to give up this opportunity to focus contact in order to give themselves an offensive edge is unreasonable. Further, it’s impossible to officiate: the contact will happen regardless, and there are too many variables in this situation to ask a referee to judge whether or not the contact was purely accidental or committed with an offensive or defensive edge. The take-away here is that it’s hockey – contact is going to happen.
Banning this contact means that coaches will not be allowed to teach their players how to hit. More importantly, it means that coaches will not be allowed to teach their players how to take a hit. Sure, they can tell them that it’s a good idea to keep their head up when completing a pass. However, unless that player’s been slammed into the boards, the lesson isn’t going to stick. Ignorance is dangerous, and this move seems like it’s going to create a whole new branch of the Darwin Awards: “When people who don’t know how to play hockey do so anyways”.
A big defence to the decision is that hitting is still allowed in the highest tier. However, this doesn’t account for a few things. The first issue with this is that many players who play at the “rep” level will choose to play “house” (the lower tiers) for a season or partial season in order to make less of a time commitment. This means that players who are trained to hit—who are bigger, faster, and more skilled than those relegated to the house leagues based on talent alone—will, at times, play amongst those who cannot hit. As any athlete will tell you, sports are instinctual. Having two such players on the ice—one who can hit and one who has never been hit—seems like a disaster to me.
None of this accounts for the effect that the decision will hold on the NHL. Players who came from the PCAHA include Ryan Getzlaf, Brent Seabrook, Evander Kane, and Ryan Nugent Hopkins. No big deal. Now imagine these players beginning their careers without hitting. In those early, formative years, learning to hit is crucial. Looking at Nugent Hopkins in particular – he’s currently playing on a starting line in the NHL, yet he’s only 18. Had he been given even a year less of hitting practice, could he be where he is today? Another Canadian player, Ed Jovanovski, didn’t start playing “rep” hockey until the age of 15. The idea that he could have ended up in the NHL if he had learned to hit that late in life is laughable.
Whether you care about player safety or Canadian honour at the NHL level, this is a bad idea. Instead of banning hitting altogether, alternatives should be found. Currently, hitting clinics in the PCAHA amount to 60 players on one rink, with one coach for one afternoon. Though some coaches choose to focus more on hitting, it’s not required. Why not create hitting clinics, and make extensive education mandatory for all players? Banning isn’t the answer, and won’t stick – especially in this hockey-crazed corner of the world. PCAHA, take pride in this part of our game. Foster skill, rather than playing the over-protective parent. The players will thank you for it.
