As a physiotherapist, hockey trainer, and a father of three active boys, seeing the results from Carolyn Emery’s study looking at effects of eliminating body-checking from Peewee hockey is not a surprise that it showed a significant reduction in total injuries as well as concussion injuries. Reducing the impacts on the body should reduce the risk of injuries and the frequency of exposure to these risks.Although the study showed that injuries were reduced, have we just pushed these injuries to an older age group (at the minor Bantam level)?I recall when one of my boys was 11 an playing at the minor peewee level: he was 5’4 and about 135 lbs but he played with teammates who were significantly different in size; one was  4’10” and seventy pounds and other boy was 5’10” and 170 pounds- a huge difference at that age group. Fast forward another two years and those same three boys were now 6’1″, 5’8″ and 5’1″, with still at least a hundred pounds difference in weight between the lightest and the heaviest. Now the kids were bigger and stronger but also moving faster. More muscle strength and more weight means more speed and greater impact forces!
In 2007 Ontario and Saskatchewan both ended a five-year pilot study where they evaluated the effects of body checking starting at the minor Atom age group (age 9). Not surprisingly, the results showed that at the minor atom age group there were more injuries compared to those provinces that did not allow body checking. Interestingly enough, as they followed this group to the Bantam and even Minor Midget years they actually found those boys who started bodychecking in minor Atom were just as likely to have injuries related to body checking in the later years. Studies showed that there were no protective effect from learning to body check at an earlier age. The evidence showed that the risk of a body checking related injury was the same for 14-15 year olds who had been introduced to body checking at a younger age, as their cohorts who had played without body checking in their younger years. Other evidence also suggested that early introduction to body checking is likely to increase the risk of injuries due to prolonged exposure.
I believe the next step for Carolyn Emery and her group at the University Calgary is to compare data of those players in minor bantam and bantam who started body checking in minor peewee with those who only began body checking in minor bantam to see what has happened in terms of overall injuries and concussion injuries. (They are probably working on this already!) The ideal scenario would be to see a reduction in injuries, but what if they found the opposite? Is there a learning effect or just more injuries at a later age?At 13-14 years of age the brain is still as vulnerable to injury as 11-12, so have we made the problem greater by introducing body checking when players are bigger, stronger, and still vastly different in size?Don’t get me wrong as I am not advocating that we start body checking earlier (or even later), but rather we need to look at the whole picture that the data presents before we say the switch to an older age for contact has been a success. The easy answer for parent of 11 and 12 year olds, is that the switch is a success due to a reduction of injuries, but if you are the parent of a 13 year old can you say the same thing?Do we need contact in hockey? At what age and levels should it occur? These are topics for a raucous debate in any hockey loving community! As research continues into the short and long term effects of concussion injuries, prevention strategies, and advanced diagnosis and management, this debate may become more clear.
Efan Gonsalves PT 