Bodychecking and concussions in ice hockey: Should our youth pay the price?

I have been a coach and a player in hockey for over 15 years and have now worked on several research projects on body checking injuries in children and I couldn’t agree more with this article. It is infuriating to see 9-year-old kids, dressed up like warriors and sent on the battlefield to bash each other around before they have any idea of the consequences. I am glad to hear that the age for body checking in Ontario is now being moved up to atom (10-11) age but the question still remains, “Is that too early”. Are we exposing children to unnecessary dangers? The fact that the age was changed in the first place due to flawed research poses the question of who is looking out for the children? It is time for the powers in hockey to take a closer look at this article and the other quality hockey articles in the literature and re-evaluate their position on body checking in hockey for the safety of the children.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

My son is playing Atom AA in the GTHL. Last season two players on my son's team went to the hospital, each twice. Both had broken a broken collarbone on one occasion. In an earlybird tournament semifinal yesterday morning, another player on our team went to hospital but was okay thankfully; however, at the final game yesterday afternoon, a fourth player on our team was sent to the hospital during the game and he has a separated shoulder. I may be the minority but I think this has to stop. At the least it discourages some kids from playing, at the worst it undoubtedly and does frequently (more than most care to admit)causes serious injury! Europeans have got it right by not body checking until the kids are much older. Kids can't get a driver's licence until they are 16, they shouldn't have body checking until that age as well. And the goon mentality on the ice is unbelievable and very much alive, it's just disgusting, especially at such a young age. I'm a parent and I can't stand watching young boys laid out on the ice going to the hospital any longer! I am pleading with whoever can end this madness and keep our children having fun and staying healthy!!

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Most concussions are caused by the head hitting the ice. So why not improve the helmets? I played football for 4 years and have coached for 5 years. In my time I have not seen any concussions. Kids start at the age of 5-6. Thier heads bash each others and hit the turf/grass really hard. The helmets are a stronger plastic and are foarmed fitted to thier heads. There is foam padding with air inflated pockets in all football helmets. They put the helmet on the player, pump in air to fit the head comfortly. This way it fits all head sizes and shapes. Not all heads are the same shape and size, so the air makes it fit perfectly.Unlike hockey helmets. They are thinner and not as padded so the head is less protected from the ice. So why not have a better designed hockey helmet for kids? Make it mandatory, by the manufactures to produce better helmets! Even if we get rid of body checking at the youth level, kids still fall and heads still hit the ice. So let's stop bashing are national sport and give the kids the protection they need and deserve to play hockey safely!

THANK YOU! Marc Smith

I have been involved at the Minor hockey level for 14 years, and have been very outspoken in regards to body checking at a young age, and especially in regards to concussions and its ramifications. This article is wonderful, but I would also add that the actual head size in young people in relation to the relative size of their bodies , and the poorly developed shoulder girdle and cervical musculature in children at that age will add to the risk.

Until this country , or the provinces, implement a sports science centre to coordinate research and implement it in programs as they relate to minor sports , we will be continue to skate through the minor system with more emotion then science.

Keep up the good work.

Your article reported that the author stated that the Lakehead Study was flawed. This statement has been taken out of context. The author stated that the self reporting data set did not meet the criteria of the study and therefore that data set was a flawed data set. The data set that reported no significant difference was a completely different data set that was submitted by the insurance company. This study was submitted for peer review and publication. I suggest that you find out from academic sources the validity of the study instead of the media! This study does not promote body checking but does contain many data sets that help in the understanding of the influence of body checking on the game.

According to Neil Seaman of CANSTATS the media has misrepresented this study!

(www.canstats.org) What the CBC did not Say

o What the CBC has not said is that independent investigation has confirmed the lack of a statistically significant increase in the rate of injuries at the atom level. Dr. Montelpare’s substantive conclusions were based on data involving insurance rate claims. The anomaly unearthed by Disclosure related to self-reported data, which are unreliable. Even before the numbers were recalculated, the self-reported data revealed the same higher rate of injury in the body-checking group.