Ban body checking in youth hockey: Dal researcher

Study is published in Canadian Medical Association Journal

Marilyn Smulders - April 18, 2011

(Bruce Bottomley Photo)
(Bruce Bottomley Photo)

She’s willing to go toe-to-toe with Don Cherry on the issue of banning body checking in youth hockey—just let her grab her helmet first.

After doing an analysis of injuries in youth hockey leagues, Dalhousie’s Syd Johnson came to the conclusion that body checking should be banned for athletes up to the age of 16. Her study is being published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) today, Monday, April 18.

Injuries

Concussions in junior hockey are quite prevalent, with up to 25 per cent of all players in one season sustaining these injuries, she says, citing one recent study. Approximately 500,000 young people in Canada play hockey in organized leagues.

“This is a conversation that Canadians have to have: is it important that our kids take some body checks while on the ice for the sake of the game or is it more important that we protect their health?” asks Dr. Johnson, post-doctoral fellow in neuro-ethics at Dalhousie.

“The fact is that the vast majority of concussions, and hockey injuries overall, at all levels of play, are caused by legal body checking,” she adds. “It’s safe to say that as long as body checking is a part of ice hockey, a high rate of concussions will also be a part of hockey.”

Concussions can cause fatigue, poor concentration, headaches and memory loss which can affect academic and athletic performance. Repeat concussions are a risk factor for chronic traumatic encephalopathy which can lead to permanent behavioral and personality changes, early dementia and other serious neurological changes.

Currently, the age in which body checking is introduced to hockey depends on the province, ranging from age nine, the Atom level, in Saskatchewan and Ontario to age 14, the Bantam level, in Quebec. In Nova Scotia, body checking is introduced when players are 12 years old.

According to Hockey Canada, body checking is defined “as an individual defensive tactic designed to legally separate the puck carrier from the puck. This tactic is the result of a defensive player applying physical extension of the body toward the puck carrier moving in an opposite or parallel direction. The action of the defensive player is deliberate and forceful in an opposite direction to which the offensive player is moving and is not solely determined by the movement of the puck carrier.”

Dr. Johnson acknowledges that body checking is a part of the game when played at an elite level. But, she adds, very few kids—a mere one in 4,000—will ever play varsity hockey, Major Junior A or in the NHL for that matter. Further, girls’ hockey, which doesn’t allow body checking, shows “hockey can be played without it and more safely without it.”

'Thoroughly thumped'

Brett Taylor, associate professor of Emergency Medicine, Pediatrics and Health Informatics at Dalhousie, agrees body checking should be delayed for most children playing hockey. As a pediatrician who works in the emergency room at the IWK Children’s Hospital, he sees the injuries that result from on-ice collisions: the back and neck injuries, contusions, concussions and multiple fractures.

Boys playing in competitive leagues are allowed to body check “at an age when they don’t have the common sense to deal with this new found power,” says Dr. Taylor. When not applied properly and cleanly, a body check can send a player sliding into the boards or smack into the path of another player. The injured player arrives at the emergency ward “thoroughly thumped,” says Dr. Taylor. “When players don’t know what they’re doing, the hit often becomes rather chaotic and the damage goes well beyond the intent.”

He suggests hockey players who show the potential to play an elite level can be taught to “hit properly.”

“I think there’s an opportunity for sport medicine to determine when that might be, when players are mature enough and capable of doing it properly.”

SEE RELATED STORY: Body checking is 'part of the physical game of hockey'

Readers Say

While I can appreciate what Dr. Johnson is trying to do, I feel that it more crucial to have the coaching staff and parents on a team be made aware of the signs of concussions and how serve they can be oppose to simply removing something that is likely to cause them from the game. To often players of all ages are told to "work through the pain" by coaches, parents, and even fellow players after a crushing blow has been dealt to them. This is an invitation for more damage to be done to the player and for the concussion to have an even greater impact on the player. The unfortunate reality is that violent actions in sports such as hockey is the norm. As such even if something such as checking is removed from play the incidence of concussions will still be large thanks to other forms of "rough play" that are present in hockey. Again I would like to emphasis that educating coaches and parents about how serve concussions can be and how hazardous "working through the pain" can be is more important than trying to alter a violent game to be less violent.
Dr. Johnson is a hero, and she's right. The game is exciting, fast and emotionally satisfying enough, without knocking our young amateur players senseless. Let the pros have concussions if that's how they want to live - I suppose they're paid enough - but our amateurs, our kids, they need the protection of science.
I agree that rough play in hockey and other contact sports is currently part of the norm, but that doesn't mean it has to remain so. One of the great things about humanity is that we learn and evolve. Shouldn't our sports?
Sport is culture, and creates and perpetuates a moral system. If the past centuries have taught ethicists anything, it is that relativism should be taken seriously (even if you are a not relativist, like myself). While I mostly agree with Johnson (unlike Rick, I will not call her a hero) her publication, in my opinion, drips of liberal bias--doing very little to present an fair appraisal of the potential rule change. She's uses high profile examples to shock and awe her point across, rather than a cool and systematic balance of both sides of the argument. Evidence suggests that our reasoning is the servant of our moral intuitions. We have a gut feeling and reason our way to the supporting conclusion (Haidt, 2007). Perhaps Johnson could have at least ventured into the the moral territory of those who continue to uphold these rules, in the face of such pressing evidence. Perhaps she may have found that the moral concerns such as "in-group loyalty", "authority" and "sacredness" is much stronger than her own, and that this "cycle" is not so ludicrous from a different moral vantage point (if it was, it would already be changed). By addressing these other sides of the moral domain, she may be better positioned to change the mind of those who hold the power for change. Unfortunately, I believe this publication will mainly appeal to those who hold moral values typical of her own (which seems to be based mostly on harm and fairness?). We need to stop finger pointing at those in charge of the rules, and start seeing it from their perspective. And even--gasp!--the youths perspective? Only then, will we be able to formulate the most convincing argument to change minds and rules. Again, I mostly agree with Johnson, and I hold similar moral values to her's (I assume), but I just find these morally biased--hit you over the head with the shovel of facts-- arguments ineffective, dated, and they give me a headache...

PS - As a student trained in sport psychology I agree with NT's above comments and can say that coach training, and the research supporting it, is one viable avenue.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002
Another issue with early introduction of checking is that there are major size differences in players in the young adolescent years, partly related to different rates of reaching puberty. One could therefore be walloped by someone considerably larger than oneself.

I long for the days of the 'Flying Frenchman', the Montreal hockey teams that emphasized speed and stick-handling. I went to a Montreal-Boston exhibition game in Hfx a couple of years ago and was disgusted by the poor sportsmanship and resort to checking and fighting when Montreal wasn't doing so well. I only watch Olympic hockey now since the Europeans have taken our game and substantially improved it.
I've grown up playing hockey my whole life and body checking is part of the game. Banning it from hockey early on will cause a huge shock to kids once they are introduced to it at an age where bodies are bigger, creating a higher risk for injury. Learning how to make and more importantly take a hit is something that needs to be taught at an early level. For those that don't want to play competitive hockey like the article mentioned, there are non-contact leagues within each minor hockey association that they can take part in where they don't have to worry about hitting.
Parents could encourage their children to play soccer, instead of hockey.
I agree with Ben. Since checking has been a part of competitive hockey for as long as anyone can remember, it would not be so easy to just remove it as people are suggesting. What is important is that it is introduced early enough that the players learn how to check properly before they are sizable enough to cause serious injury.

More importantly, it is important that the players are taught properly how to take a hit and how to fall without injuring themselves seriously. This should be taught at entry level, along with the other basics of the sport.
93 year old mousie dowling says ban the curve stick.STICK HANDLING SHOULD BE AND IMPORTANT PART OF THE GAME.HOCKNEY WILL BE JUST AS EXCITING.THE SMALL PERSON LIKE NAM NGUYGEN (13 YEARS) WOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME.BY THE WAY MR DOWLING HALL OF FAMER IN BOTH GOLF AND HOCKEY.
checking should SO be a part of hockey. I can see them taking it out for ages 5-10 but for any older! seriously! plus, what's the point of playing hockey if you can't play rough. how will you learn?
Syd Johnson is a proponent of running from the problem. Push the problem to another age category. The answer is simple, change the mindset of the game. Eliminate the concept of taking the body first then playing the puck and replace it with play the puck first and the body second. I have yet to see an injury or a player suspended when he or she plays the puck first and the body second. This concept should be taught at the earliest ages and the game goes back to the way it use to be played and not the way it is played in the NHL today.

Join the conversation, but keep it clean, stay on the topic and be brief. Read comments policy.

Characters remaining: 2000

(optional)