Hockey did not develop from a child’s game. The first official hockey games were played in the 19th century on so-called artificial surfaces like Montreal’s Victoria skating rink. Since the game evolved from sports played and designed by adults, the rinks were adult-sized, too. As rink markings were added in the early 20th century, these also were painted with the adult in mind.
Essentially, hockey rink designs are what they were 100 years ago. If anything, they’re larger. Certainly the painted lines, with only a few modifications, are unchanged. Alterations to the faceoff circle’s lines, for instance, have been made as per requests from the professionals. They’ve made perfect sense for big people, none for everyone else.
Whether or not it’s feasible or practical to build smaller rinks or offer different ice lines is a different debate. Yet minor hockey has made virtually no modifications to its playing surface, nets, or rules to account for the obvious differences between adults and kids or teens. Thus today’s minor hockey coach is faced with the challenge of having to adjust teaching to an envirnoment that is hardly kid-friendly. The result is a top-down approach that attempts to miniaturize what we see from the big boys. It’s an easy trap to fall into since a coach can always just say he’s stuck with the space. Might as well not bother then with adaptations in drills and tactics.
There are many obvious problems with our adult-sized rinks and these are especially acute as we move down the age ladder to the youngest players. The boards are too high to clamber over; the nets are as large as what the pros use, the only team sport which does this; offsides and icings are the same, too (except for touch icing in the NHL); distances for a skill or tactic are proportionately greater than for any non-adult; line markings used for reference teaching points are neither kid-length nor adjustable.
The implications for teaching are considerable. A drill used for older adolescents or adults then for kids is asking them to perform at a greater distance, thus over a longer period of time, yet maintain a consistent effort with some proficiency. It’s tantamount to asking ten year olds to write a two hour exam like their college elders.
Let’s investigate one simple example. You see the local junior club perform a terrific passing drill. It’s a full ice flow activity that has each player doing three give-and-go passes while curling at right angles to the passer. It finishes with a shot on net. There are no defenders or similar resistance challenges.
Your pee wee team also has a full sheet to work with. However, not all the kids can turn both ways and they don’t really understand yet the idea of being at the proper angle to receive a pass. Therefore they tend to skate a straight line when they’re supposed to curl because it’s shorter and easier. They’re also slower than the juniors which means it takes them longer to travel the same distance. This drastically slows the drill, leaving more kids waiting longer. It no longer flows. Their passes are weak , let alone having the required zip at the distance the drill expects. As well, passing on the go (and receiving) requires multi-tasking many aren’t able to do well. Perhaps they could for one or two passes, but anything more grinds down the drill.
Juniors finished the drill by receiving a pass inside the blueline and getting away a good shot that tests the goalie. The pee wees often miss the last pass. When they do get the puck, it takes them longer to ready themselves for a shot and are practically on top of the goalie when about to release the puck.
Perhaps the drill had too many things going on for this level. Plus, the larger space required placed extra burdens on the kids in terms of their skill level and ability to apply the concepts. This kind of drill done inside a blueline with just two give and go passes would be more consistent with their needs and abilities.
Another example. From a tactical standpoint, the rink poses challenges even to bantam and midget players. Consider a power play in which you want your team to be able to pass to someone on his off wing for a one-timer shot. At the pro or junior level, this is a standard skill. They have the training, strength, and coordination to accomplish it successfully most times. However, placing an adolescent in the same spot and expecting similar results is asking a lot. They obviously have few of the attributes of juniors or pros yet are hoped to be a scoring threat from the same distance. Does that make sense?
Just as drills and activities need to be adapted in terms of time spent or progressions taught, so, too, must they be presented in a space appropriate to the level. This also applies to tactical instruction. While all coaches would hope to have their youngsters moving the puck across the full width of the rink and using each zone to its fullest, this isn’t practical for most age groups. The answer is to shrink the rink.
Generally, hockey works with three zones and three lanes. Nearly everything coaches do is expressed in those terms. Why? Partly because of tradition, partly because of the rink markings, and partly because it’s expedient to do so. Alternative approaches are either unknown or deemed too complicated to consider. However, in light of what we know about learning styles, progressions, and growth and development, it behooves coaches to at least examine these alternatives. It’s possible they may make sense.
Next: How to shrink the rink
