Parent
Received: from hotmail.com (f226.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.226]) by
plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11EF0j15975 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:15:00 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:06:46 -0800
Received: from 24.4.254.71 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed,
31 Jan 2001 20:06:46 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [24.4.254.71]
From: "Chris Anderson"
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:06:46 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2001 20:06:46.0977 (UTC)
FILETIME=[56EE2310:01C08BC1]
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
I'm sorry but I have to ad my 2 cents in on this one.
First, I'm against the idea of lighter pucks for girls. I could go on and
on about why, but the best way to relate it is this. Whoever thinks a
lighter puck is a good idea for women, is the same idiot who thought women
should play softball rather than baseball. The reasoning there being
something to the effect that it would hurt less to get hit by a softball
rather than a baseball.
However, they neglected to realize that girls learning to play have smaller
hands than their male counterparts and throwing a baseball would have been
much easier than lugging a huge softball to second base. NO wonder people
say girls throw like "girls". If you had to shot put a huge ball like that,
you would throw it funny too. Excuse my sarcasm. The point is, it hurts
just as much to get hit by a softball as it does a baseball, so there is
realy no since in playing one over the other.
Furthermore, they try to change the rules for girls sports in other ways to
in order to try and "protect" us. What a load of crap. There is no reason
girls should not be able to steal bases until the Majors or not be able to
check another girl. Heck, if I can play in a men's college full check
league and get hit by guys three times my size, there is no reason girls
can't just play the same darn rules as the boys do. Why the hell do they
change the rules, there is absolutely no reason for it other than pure
stupidity and ignorance. I'm sorry but this hit a hot button with me.
Thanks for letting me vent.
If someone could please give just one "good" reason why girls sports have
different rules, I'd give them a medal, becuase as far as I can see there is
no reason for it at all.
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Received: from mail.rdc2.bc.home.com (ha1.rdc2.bc.wave.home.com
[24.2.10.68]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11EKbj19472 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
06:20:37 -0800
Received: from cs656486a ([24.67.216.151]) by mail.rdc2.bc.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id
<20010201050644.DFOA27952.mail.rdc2.bc.home.com@cs656486a> for
; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:06:44 -0800
Message-ID: <001201c08c0d$34b64d80$email@hidden>
From: "Phil Cottrell"
To: "women-in-hockey"
Subject: Final Score: USA/Canada
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:09:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
Angela Ruggiero scores with 20 seconds to go to give USA a 5-4 win.
Scores were 1-0 Canada after one, 1-1 after two, featuring rather scrambly
play by both sides. Wild and exciting third period with some absolutely
suicidal defending by Team Canada, including a couple of surprising lapses
by Hayley Wickenheiser. King was player of the game for USA, Botterill for
Canada. Dube pitched a shutout for her half of the game, Charline Labonti
allowed five in the final 30 minutes. But most weren't her fault.
Friday night's rematch in Denver ought to be a barn-burner.
Phil
Received: from by.genie.uottawa.ca (by.genie.uottawa.ca
[137.122.20.226]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11FSlj28186 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
07:28:47 -0800
Received: from mallory ([137.122.109.181]) by by.genie.uottawa.ca
(8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA18700 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:33:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id:
X-Sender: email@hidden
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:34:55 -0500
To: "women-in-hockey"
From: Louise
Subject: ESQ Players of the Game (Was Re: Final Score: USA/Canada)
In-Reply-To: <001201c08c0d$34b64d80$email@hidden>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
At 09:09 PM 31/01/2001 -0800, Phil Cottrell wrote:
>King was player of the game for USA, Botterill for
>Canada.
I didn't watch the whole game (too late for some of us Easterners! - so I
sampled through the rest of the tape this morning) so I don't really have
an opinion about King's and Botterill's play last night. But I'm beginning
to wonder whether the ESQ Player of the Game thing is not completely chosen
during the game based on play in that game. There seems to be a surprising
correlation between the players whose taped interviews are shown between
periods on TSN, and the players who get the ESQ awards. Last year at the
TSN game in Toronto, one Canadian and one American player (Meaghan Sittler)
were featured between periods, and the same two players got the watches,
without really standing out during the game, in the opinion of the people
with whom I was at the game. Last night, they played an interview with Jen
Botterill after the 2nd, but just a feature about the Oval High Performance
program after the 1st. Hmmm.
Louise
Received: from naz.edu (gateway.naz.edu [204.168.82.9]) by
plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11HwXj02470 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:58:33 -0800
Received: by gateway.naz.edu id <115201>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:07:30 -0500
X-WebMail-UserID: mldonahu
From: Michelle Donahue
To: email@hidden
X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002794
Subject: RE: Lighter Pucks
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.60
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:07:28 -0500
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
Everyone should be using heaver pucks in practice to improve their shooting
during games, no matter what level you are at. Not only will it improve
strenght, but control as well. Common sense. People claim that women's
hockey is real hockey, but how can it be if you change the rules???
"If you go to a fight you might see a hockey game break out."
"The only reason that figure skating is a sport is because it's played on a hocky rink."
"Remember, behind every scar there is a story!!"
"In baseball, if you fight you get a 5 game suspension. In hockey, if you fight you get a 5 minute penalty, then get to do it again."
Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11Jj5j06627 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:45:05 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r17.mx.aol.com
(mail_out_v29.5.) id i.50.10db199c (3704); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:49:48
-0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:49:47 EST
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks
To: email@hidden, email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
In a message dated 2/1/01 9:36:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
email@hidden writes:
> If someone could please give just one "good" reason why girls sports have
> different rules, I'd give them a medal, becuase as far as I can see there
> is
> no reason for it at all.
>
>
Hi Chris,
I totally agree with you, but I can tell you the reason (as far as what I've
always been told) as to why checking is not in the women's game. At one
time, checking was part of the women's game, but that checking was causing
far more injuries than it did in the men's game. Upon close examination, it
was found that their is a larger size discrepancy among women than among men
and that was the primary reason that more injuries were occurring. Whether or
not that is totally scientifically accurate, I don't know, but I do know that
on the women's team that I play for, there really does seem to be a much
broader range of sizes than among the men on the men's teams I've played for.
Jackie
Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11Jsvj07060 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:54:58 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r06.mx.aol.com
(mail_out_v29.5.) id j.46.100ba46f (3704); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:59:30
-0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:59:30 EST
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
To: email@hidden, email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
In a message dated 2/1/01 11:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
email@hidden writes:
> Regarding the issue of "women's hockey is a different game from men's
> hockey",
> the main reason for this is the lack of checking, not the weight of the
> puck.
> Conservatism in sports is high and often advancements are refused solely to
> save the "purity" of the sport. What value is there in having a puck that's
>
Shooting is not so much the issue for the lighter pucks as stickhandling is.
I've used those pucks and they are WAY harder to control while stickhandling.
If you have a puck that is that difficult to stickhandle, you may never even
make it to the net to take a shot in the first place!
Jackie
Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11KHej08258 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:17:40 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.)
id b.6d.ee26cde (15900) for ; Thu, 1
Feb 2001 15:22:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web46.aolmail.aol.com (web46.aolmail.aol.com
[205.188.161.7]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v77.35) with ESMTP; Thu, 01
Feb 2001 15:22:31 -0500
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:22:31 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: player size range vs checking injuries
To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Message-ID:
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
Um, the guys come in all shapes and sized too...
Hal Gill - the Boston Bruins 6' 7" somewhere around 230lbs
Sergi Samsonov - also the Boston Bruins 5' 8" about 160 pounds (that's only 10 pounds more than me... not to say that if he checked me, I wouldn't be getting up anytime soon.)
In a message dated 2/1/01 9:36:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
email@hidden writes:
I totally agree with you, but I can tell you the reason (as far as what I've
always been told) as to why checking is not in the women's game. At one
time, checking was part of the women's game, but that checking was causing
far more injuries than it did in the men's game. Upon close examination, it
was found that their is a larger size discrepancy among women than among men
and that was the primary reason that more injuries were occurring. Whether or
not that is totally scientifically accurate, I don't know, but I do know that
on the women's team that I play for, there really does seem to be a much
broader range of sizes than among the men on the men's teams I've played for.
Jackie
Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net
[207.172.4.60]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11KHYj08256 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
12:17:34 -0800
Received: from 66-44-56-71.s71.tnt2.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com
([66.44.56.71]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.16 #5) id
14OQFV-0000OD-00 ; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:22:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Stick Question
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 01 15:25:25 -0500
x-sender: email@hidden
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: ellice
To: "Michelle Donahue" ,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id:
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
Hi Michelle,
I know this has been a little while, but... I have 2 composite sticks,
slightly different models, but very nice, light with medium flex. I have
a Kennex MICROLIGHT , and a Pro-Kennex GT3000, each has a carbon-graphite
blade inserted. The current year models are the extremely similar, just
different numbers/graphics on the shaft.
The MicroLight is a nice shape in the hands, and a couple of the smaller
guys on my men's team actually like it a lot. It's great for
stick-handling. The GT3000 is a little heftier - use it when playing D.
Maybe it's a head thing. Anyhow, they've both held up well through 3
seasons & summers. If you can find them - even to try - take a look at a
pro-shop. It's not a real common stick, but might be a good investment.
They come in several flex-stiffness - indicated by the model number on
teh Pro-Kennex.
Yes, do have the pricey -about $36 - blade in them, but I found that I
was breaking the wooden $15-20 blades pretty frequently. The
carbon-graphite (black, Easton blade) has held up really well. I had one
stick with that for a good 18 months before switching the blade on the
2nd stick. So.... Anyhow - the shafts probably retail about $90, but you
might find a bargain on line, or mail order.
good luck,
ellice
>Received: 1/20/01 11:15 AM
>From: Michelle Donahue, email@hidden
>Also, can anyone recomend a good stick (either an intermediate or senior)
>that
>has a nice medium flex b/c they too are hard to find in my area and my game
>has been suffering b/c I can't get off good shots. I've tried bauer,
>hespler,
>montreal, and sherwood, but I can't seem to find a stick that fits better in
>my hands, I can flex easily, but I'm afraid that I'm not going to be getting
>them anymore.
Received: from by.genie.uottawa.ca (by.genie.uottawa.ca
[137.122.20.226]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11KMDj08929 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
12:22:14 -0800
Received: from mallory ([137.122.109.181]) by by.genie.uottawa.ca
(8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA23544 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:27:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id:
X-Sender: email@hidden
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:28:12 -0500
To: email@hidden
From: Louise
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
At 02:59 PM 01/02/2001 -0500, email@hidden wrote:
>In a message dated 2/1/01 11:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>email@hidden writes:
>
>
>> What value is there in having a puck that's
>> harder to shoot?
>
>Shooting is not so much the issue for the lighter pucks as stickhandling is.
>I've used those pucks and they are WAY harder to control while stickhandling.
> If you have a puck that is that difficult to stickhandle, you may never even
>make it to the net to take a shot in the first place!
In the last round of CHA rule changes, a rule permitting the use of the
lighter (blue) puck in Novice (9&under) and below was introduced. We don't
use them in our association, but I've been wondering whether it would help
skill development for my FUNdamentals players (ages 5-7) to work with a
lighter puck sometimes. Many of the smaller ones do have quite a bit of
difficulty handling the standard puck.
Does anyone here have experience with young players and lightweight pucks?
Louise
Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11KcNj09663 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:38:23 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r13.mx.aol.com
(mail_out_v29.5.) id e.97.10a3f147 (3704); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:43:07
-0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:43:07 EST
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
To: email@hidden, email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
In a message dated 2/1/01 3:33:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, email@hidden
writes:
> Does anyone here have experience with young players and lightweight pucks?
>
>
Yes, I have experience with them, I coached Mites (5-7) for 5 seasons and USA
hockey also tried to introduce those pucks. We tried them and hated them,
tried them several times actually and now we do not use them in our
association.
Jackie
Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net
[207.172.4.60]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11KeMj09819 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
12:40:23 -0800
Received: from 66-44-62-104.s104.tnt5.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com
([66.44.62.104]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.16 #5)
id 14OQbc-0005r2-00 ; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:45:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 01 15:48:16 -0500
x-sender: email@hidden
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: ellice
To: "Louise" ,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id:
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
I had to start laughing here - must be in the ref mode (last night -
association meeting).Anyhow, USAH did have a lighter weight - the "BLUE"
puck which was optional and could be used for Atoms (6 & under) or Mites
(8 & under) in the previous rule book. However - as usual, USAH and CHA
are totally in sync ;^) - that option was REMOVED in the
99-2000/2000-2001 Rule Book.
I think while some folks thought it certainly made it a little easier for
the lil' folks to move around the benefits were limited and outweighed by
complications. The youth teams didn't have to use the lighter puck,
consequently if one team used the standard, and another used the lighter,
when they played all things confusing happened.
The trend in the coaching education/youth player training here is to use
"little games" - or smaller sections of the ice with the very young
players. As in games cross-rink, rather than full ice, practices
splitting the rinks into 3 sections, things like that - and accomodate
the smaller size and churning little legs of the very young. That way
they can get around and really play more in a smaller space, instead of
spending sooooo much time getting up and down the ice.
So, the lighter puck has been ruled out - it is specifically not legal in
USAH games. Well, that was my $.05 worth.
later skaters,
ellice
Received: 2/1/01 3:40 PM
From: Louise, email@hidden
>In the last round of CHA rule changes, a rule permitting the use of the
>lighter (blue) puck in Novice (9&under) and below was introduced. We don't
>use them in our association, but I've been wondering whether it would help
>skill development for my FUNdamentals players (ages 5-7) to work with a
>lighter puck sometimes. Many of the smaller ones do have quite a bit of
>difficulty handling the standard puck.
>
>Does anyone here have experience with young players and lightweight pucks?
Received: from m2w033 (M2W033.mail2web.com [168.144.108.33]) by
plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11Khpj10138 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:43:51 -0800
Received: from m2w033 [168.144.108.33] by m2w033 with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-6.00) id ABB2A49D00FE; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:48:50 -0500
X-Originating-IP: 63.100.108.12
X-URL: http://www.mail2web.com/
Subject: RE: Re: Lighter Pucks?
From: "email@hidden"
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:48:50 -0500
To: "email@hidden" ,
"email@hidden"
Reply-To: email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: JMail 3.7.0 by Dimac (www.dimac.net)
Message-Id: <200102011548514.SM01740@m2w033>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by plaidworks.com id
f11Khpj10138
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
I ref atom games (7 & under) here in the US). Most of the time, stick handling comes second to staying on their skates for most of them. Our league uses the standard puck, although I read that USA hockey was using a lighter puck for some leagues in this age group. The lighter puck is part of a new developmental program where the kids also play on a smaller ice surface with smaller nets. Personally, I think this is a good idea. Have you ever seen some of these kids play on an Olympic rink? It's ridiculous. By the third period, they're all about ready to keel over from exhaustion. Also, the smaller net makes it more fair for the goalies. Some of those goalies could stand straight up and not even come close to hitting their heads on the crossbar of a standard goal. All in all, I see no problem with make smaller puck, ice surface, and nets for the really young kids. We want them to build their confidence. Look at other sports, they enlarge the field as kids get older.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Louise email@hidden
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:28:12 -0500
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks?
At 02:59 PM 01/02/2001 -0500, email@hidden wrote:
>In a message dated 2/1/01 11:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>email@hidden writes:
>
>
>> What value is there in having a puck that's
>> harder to shoot?
>
>Shooting is not so much the issue for the lighter pucks as stickhandling is.
>I've used those pucks and they are WAY harder to control while stickhandling.
> If you have a puck that is that difficult to stickhandle, you may never even
>make it to the net to take a shot in the first place!
In the last round of CHA rule changes, a rule permitting the use of the
lighter (blue) puck in Novice (9&under) and below was introduced. We don't
use them in our association, but I've been wondering whether it would help
skill development for my FUNdamentals players (ages 5-7) to work with a
lighter puck sometimes. Many of the smaller ones do have quite a bit of
difficulty handling the standard puck.
Does anyone here have experience with young players and lightweight pucks?
Louise
_______________________________________________
women-in-hockey mailing list
email@hidden
http://www.hockeyfanz.com/mailman/listinfo/women-in-hockey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at
http://www.mail2web.com/ .
Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net
[207.172.4.60]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id
f11Kjmj10305 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001
12:45:48 -0800
Received: from 66-44-62-104.s104.tnt5.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com
([66.44.62.104]) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.16 #5)
id 14OQgs-00007X-00 ; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:50:51 -0500
Subject: Re: player size range vs checking injuries
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 01 15:53:43 -0500
x-sender: email@hidden
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: ellice
To: ,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id:
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
>Um, the guys come in all shapes and sized too...
Very true. But, from what I remember reading about this, and some other
knowledge - I'd bet the study is referring to the distribution of
size/weight/muscle mass and bone density in women vs men. There is a
denser grouping of size/weight in men than in women. Which doesn't mean
you don't have extremes either way, but the variation in females within
the median group is more - as in that group is more spread out than with
males.
So, the women get to play hard, and think a bit more - using those
excellent skills. It was a real awakening to many of the locals here when
we hosted women's nationals 2 years okay. Spectators, and even some
officials were a bit surprised at the ferocity and physicality that truly
is legal in the game, and is more evident at those high skill levels.
ellice
Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f11MDPj14585 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:13:25 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r10.mx.aol.com
(mail_out_v29.5.) id b.a6.f72cb41 (4353) for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:18:15 EST
Subject: Re: Lighter Pucks
To: email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c
X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
In a message dated 2/1/2001 1:53:57 PM Central Standard Time,
email@hidden writes:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I totally agree with you, but I can tell you the reason (as far as what
> I've
> always been told) as to why checking is not in the women's game. At one
> time, checking was part of the women's game, but that checking was causing
> far more injuries than it did in the men's game. Upon close examination,
> it
> was found that their is a larger size discrepancy among women than among
> men
> and that was the primary reason that more injuries were occurring. Whether
> or
> not that is totally scientifically accurate, I don't know, but I do know
> that
> on the women's team that I play for, there really does seem to be a much
> broader range of sizes than among the men on the men's teams I've played
> for.
>
sounds like an excuse to me. I've played contact sports with guys,
particularly Lacrosse for 15 years (another beef I have with the different
rules between men's and women's sports because women's lacrosse is so vastly
different than men's that it limited my options once I got university aged
and wanted to go D1 =( ) and I've always been of the mind that women can take
a hit, I'm not a huge girl I'm 5'6" 145lbs and if I can take being whacked in
competitive men's lacrosse I can take a hit from a girl. Also there is just
as broad a size range in men's hockey, once you get up into elite levels it
becomes more homogeneous, but that's because some GMs/coaches have an
obsession for gorillas on ice and think size is better, except that trend may
be reversing with the speed and skill of smaller players on Stanley cup
winning teams whooping the Big lugs of a Philly, but if size discrepencies
really caused so many injuries, then why does boys' hockey allow checking
before everyone's done growing with puberty?
Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f121Wqj22390 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:32:52 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id
b.87.65c599b (4227) for ; Thu, 1 Feb
2001 20:37:41 -0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:37:40 EST
Subject: Re: women-in-hockey digest, Vol 1 #168 - 7 msgs
To: email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
THE place to skate.....AAAAHHHH...the surf,the sand,the beach...and
hockey..??!!! You guessed it,we are putting together a team to go to another
tournament.This time its Virginia Beach.The dates for this one are April 27th
to the 29th.The fee for this one is as follows: Per player: 205.00 US,THIS
does include you hotel and entry fee.As you already can guess,this does not
include transportation.These rooms are suites,no just hotel rooms.The level
for this one is Senior Rec,so you will not need alot of experience for this
one.We cant get around the fee by booking your room seperate from the entry
fee,thats why it is so much.If your interested please contact email@hidden
Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7])
by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f121cRj22726 for
; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:38:27 -0800
Received: from email@hidden by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id
b.3d.6e710c1 (4227) for ; Thu, 1 Feb
2001 20:43:19 -0500 (EST)
From: email@hidden
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:43:06 EST
Subject: Re: women-in-hockey digest, Vol 1 #167 - 9 msgs
To: email@hidden
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
X-BeenThere: email@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe: ,
List-Id: A mailing list for women who play hockey and people involved in women's hockey
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
Does anyone know where we could watch the USA womens hockey team play on t.v?
Seems its not broadcasted around here..we live in MICHIGAN..think we could
watch it over in the enemys territory? LOL.....I mean watch it in Canada