Feedback from parents, coaches and hockey organizations has brought forth the following questions and statements that have formed this consensus of information required by those queries.

Q. "WHEN is the 'Change' to be implemented?"

In the modified form in season 2002-2003 and in the complete form 2003-2004

Q. "WHY The mixing of grades at school?"

Having primary school students on the same team as secondary school students does not make sense."

The workshop had many educators within the participants. The consensus was that this very point was very overrated. It is not necessarily so that primary school students are 13 and high school students are 14. We considered the point but found that other determining factors were of more importance.

- - -

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT [paraphrased]

Jack Forsyth: If you check most of the school years likely our current date catches more kids and they're playing with their classmates than any other date suggested. Most kids are entering school the year they're born for that date. So you can look at the calendar year or the 1982/83 most of the kids that are playing are playing in the age division that they're playing with their schoolmates. So if we tamper with the age determination date you are going to have a lot of kids who are not going to be playing with the kids they go to school with. We want them to play with their peers. That's what I heard all day yesterday - we want them socially to play with their friends, therefore the age determination date that we have currently is accurate.

Dr. Montelpare: I want to support the comment. If you refer back to our study in 1996 we demonstrated that the relative age effect exists because of selection criteria not because of any biological phenomenon or any physiological characteristic. It's purely on selection and again as Jack is saying it's the best age that actually fits relative to the school year and the mass distribution of players. The key thing that you have to be aware of today is that we all agreed that 12 years of age is the important age marker. You listened very well yesterday to David [Carmichael] and the information he presented in terms of the puberty effect and that whole chaos that exists between 12.5 and 14.5 years of age. So the characteristic here is that if we were make one decision this weekend that we change the age divisions then the age determination date won't have an affect as it does right now relative to age divisions. And we have the evidence to show it. Basically what the literature shows in terms of all the research that 12.5 to 14.5 is in a complete state of flux. So you wouldn't say that there's a consistent ratio difference or a consistent disparity or consistency in the variances of any of these factors. Basically at 12 you have your greatest concentration of consistencies and at 12.5 you have your greatest mass of inconsistencies across the ages up to 14.5 and then it tails off after that.

Q. AGE DETERMINATION DATE "Does the Age Change cause more or less problem for players born in the 4th quarter of the year (age determination)?"

Under the current age definitions a player born in the later 3rd of the year has a difficult time as it is making a team in his minor year. Thus adversely effecting his skill development. This fact bears out when we look at the statistics of all current professional hockey players. Upon close examination of the birthdates we see that the vast majority were born in the 1st half of the calendar year while only 10% were born in the last 3rd."

The age determination date remains unchanged at December 31 because most school boards across Canada use December 31 for school purposes. USA Hockey changed their age determination date to June 30 and is unhappy about the results. No matter what the date for age determination there will always be players in the first, second, third and fourth quartiles. Moreover the sports that stress skill development at the younger ages (soccer, basketball, baseball) have less effect from age determination. Therefore we must upgrade our skill emphasis to moderate the relative age effect in hockey.

- - -

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT [paraphrased]

Team B: For the age determination date, we looked at June 30th or December 31st. It doesn't matter what date you have, you're going to have the kids who are born soon after the date being the ones making it further up the ladder. So it really doesn't matter where you put it. It's going to affect kids regardless of where you have it, the first month or the 12 month. I think the consensus basically is it really doesn't matter in terms of development of hockey where it is.

Jack Forsyth (repeat): If you check most of the school years likely our current date catches more kids and they're playing with their classmates than any other date suggested. Most kids are entering school the year they're born for that date. So you can look at the calendar year or the 1982/83 most of the kids that are playing are playing in the age division that they're playing with their schoolmates. So if we tamper with the age determination date you are going to have a lot of kids who are not going to be playing with the kids they go to school with. We want them to play with their peers. That's what I heard all day yesterday - we want them socially to play with their friends, therefore the age determination date that we have currently is accurate.

Dr. Montelpare (repeat): I want to support Bob's comment. If you refer back to our study in 1996 we demonstrated that the relative age effect exists because of selection criteria not because of any biological phenomenon or any physiological characteristic. It's purely on selection and again as Jack is saying it's the best age that actually fits relative to the school year and the mass distribution of players. The key thing that you have to be aware of today is that we all agreed that 12 years of age is the important age marker. You listened very well yesterday to David [Carmichael] and the information he presented in terms of the puberty effect and that whole chaos that exists between 12.5 and 14.5 years of age. So the characteristic here is that if we were make one decision this weekend that we change the age divisions then the age determination date won't have an affect as it does right now relative to age divisions. And we have the evidence to show it. Basically what the literature shows in terms of all the research that 12.5 to 14.5 is in a complete state of flux. So you wouldn't say that there's a consistent ratio difference or a consistent disparity or consistency in the variances of any of these factors. Basically at 12 you have your greatest concentration of consistencies and at 12.5 you have your greatest mass of inconsistencies across the ages up to 14.5 and then it tails off after that.

Kathy McDonald: Groups, please Identify an age determination date and a solid rationale.

[Small Group Work]

Kathy McDonald: I'm going to start at the top and go from group to group and identify the date.

Team A: We felt that the December 31st date was appropriate based on the evidence that Bill suggested that relative age effect will have less of an impact on the model that we're proposing. In 2 or 3 years time we'll have another discussion about age determination date. We thought it would be more positive. We're certainly happy with the December 31st date.

Team B: December 31st. Because it has the least impact on players and administrators and there's really no reason to change.

Team C: As far as the age determination we decided it's probably close to the school determination date. Administratively it would be easier. It is something that we could evaluate in 2 or 3 years in which the age categories themselves would change to see if there's a need later down the road to change that. December 31st.

Team D: We were leaning towards June 30th but we felt we couldn't make a really good decision until we had a survey across the country of what the schools entry dates are. To make sure we're not interfering with that - take the kids out of 2 different classes of school. Have you done that survey across the country by province what the age cut-off is going into grade 1? Basically we would have to go with where the major numbers are there.

Team G: December 31st for all the same reasons. We said that December 31st matched up with their social and school activities and they're all pretty much the same across the country. We did that survey across the land within our group.

Team F: We had December 31st because there wasn't a lot of rationale for change. Looking at the paper circulated earlier, a rotating age determination date needs to be looked at in further discussion.

Kathy McDonald: Sounds like a scary thought over here.

Team F: Administratively it is scary but discussed it in our Branch. If you go with the Players First option that's what we need to look at to see if it would be a benefit.

Kathy McDonald: Something to explore. Okay.

Team E: We stayed the same as what's there, .December 31.

- - -

AGE CATEGORIZATION

Kathy McDonald: Okay what do we do about age categories?

Team A: We reached a decision on age categorization based on sound scientific data and great research. We based that decision not on emotion, not on personal preference but based on the facts that were presented. The intent is to provide the mechanism, and this is very important, that will enable the CHA to maintain and enhance hockey in Canada.

Team B: It is hard to follow such a profound statement. We based our recommendation on science, age change studies and the social emotional impacts that were discussed in David's presentation. It is based on the 12th year being so much the magic year. It supports the players' wellbeing and focused in terms of safety and the rationale based on players' needs. It has impact on Midget retention. There will be more kids playing Midget, it will be good for rural areas and fewer will go to Junior at a younger age. We also said that the decision helps the initiation program. It's a 4-year program pre-Pee Wee and that fits with the initiation programs.

Team G: Okay for Divisions. We thought the new Divisions address the critical age and size disparity identified between 12.5 and after to 14.5. It addresses the declining numbers in Midget. We talked about the fine-tuning to that mandatory Midget discussion that may come somewhere down the road. With the recommended we have a 3-year Midget division. It supports skill development and we're relating that back to our foundation that we all talked about life skills, skills development and all that kind of thing.

Team C: Our rationale is similar the others so far. Research studies of growth and development address the size differences mainly in the PeeWee/Bantam age division as they currently are. We also feel it's an opportunity for more communities to field Midget teams therefore giving Midget-aged players a better opportunity to play.

Team F: Our rationale for decision was why we're having this workshop, to provide a definition of a large group of Novice and pre Novice with the addition 5 with 6. Novice is now grouped into more compatible levels as far as maturity. It gives the 5 and 6 age group an association and title. It gives them a sense of belonging or at least part of a group, Pre Novice. It provides a better opportunity to make Atom less competitive and more focused on development. Seeing as we drop it back one year, it breaks the 12/13 bracket which scientifically is inappropriate. Allows for a larger pool of players at the Midget division. Should see growth in small town Midget hockey. 11/12 group and possibly all may stay in the game longer because there's less fear. There are appropriate size and strength levels that are playing against one and other. In Alberta, I'm not sure about the rest of the country, 15-year olds will now get an opportunity to play one year of Midget before they move on to the major Junior.

Team D: Our rationale was that we wanted early skill development and a progressive skill development program. We wanted a program in which there would be limited competition and we felt very strongly that streaming should not begin until after age 12. I'm not sure this is a rationale, but the outcome of what we've done is that there will be more Midget players available to play at that level. The science is solid rationale.

Team E: Our people have very similar responses and we have 4 points. Like everyone else it is supported by scientific evidence presented this weekend. First, a 12-year old plays better with an 11-year old than being with a 13-year old from a maturation and development standpoint. Secondly, as everyone else mentioned, it fits with the CHA program design nicely. We talked about how the initiation program fits in some of our curriculum like the NIKE Program. Thirdly, the Midget division has a bigger catch area now. It really shifts the 'business' of hockey to Midget versus the present Bantam. Last but not least it's a democratic decision that in our discussions was representative of what we thought was in the best interest of the players from coast-to-coast.

Doug Palazzari [USA Hockey]: There's no magic date of determination. No magic grouping. Kids are going to vary in all kinds of ways, social ways, maturation level, some skill levels. Our job is to provide programs that finds a place for them to play regardless of those issues.

I tell you, picking that date is the hardest thing in the world and in terms of everyone. I mean no matter what date you decide on you're going to have some people who are affected and they're going to be against it because it affects their child. You have to decide on a date that is going to work for where you want the groupings of players to be playing. We wanted the older 13-year olds out of PeeWee.

Q. FIRST YEAR BANTAM "I am very concerned that if the proposed changes are ratified, there will be a very negative impact on a number of boys who are currently first year Bantam. For example, a boy whose birthday is in November or December would be playing at age 14 with kids who are as old as 17, going on 18.

In 2002/2003 14 years old players will play with players ranging from 13 to 14.5 years of age.

In 2003/2004 14 years old players will play with players 13 and 14.

Q. MISS A YEAR "Will some players miss their major pee wee year?"

Yes. A Minor PeeWee player in 2001/2002 will go directly to Minor Bantam in 2002/2003. Those in leagues where there is MINOR and MAJOR divisions there will be little effect. In smaller organizations where there is only one age division team a player will not miss a division but could lose a year in a two-year division.

Q. GIRLS IN BOYS LEAGUES "Will this age change affect girls that are playing with boys, if so how?"

No change.

Q. JUNIOR HOCKEY "What will Junior hockey do? Should they not be part of the "clean slate?" The OHL draft - will it change? Will this age change allow younger players to be eligible for the Bantam Draft?"

CHA Junior Council at meetings in November 2000 developed a notice of motion that would require players to complete a mandatory year of Midget hockey before moving to Junior division.

No recommendation suggests that the Major Junior teams use the proposed age group changes to lower the draft age. There is no indication that the Canadian Hockey League is even contemplating such a move. And if they were to move toward the lower age draft their initiative would meet with exceptional resistance from the other hockey organizations.

Q. COMPETITION AT YOUNGER AGES "Why are introducing competition one year younger? (7 year olds) seems to be inconsistent with OPEN ICE."

We are NOT recommending competition at the younger age groups. The emphasis will be on skill development with formal competition downplayed at the younger ages.

Q. BODY CHECKING "The change in age does not address the real probems in Canadian hockey, which is body checking. When will body checking be introduced?"

The Ontario Hockey Federation, Ottawa District Hockey Association, with the Canadian Hockey Association and Lakehead University Kinesiology Department is completing a three-year pilot project on the effects of introducing body checking into the present Atom age groups. Part of the project is that all coaches and participants receive special education on the skills of checking including body checking. We have a control group in the Ottawa District that receive the checking education but play in non-body checking leagues. The pilot groups are teams selected from the OHF. The preliminary results show that the injury rate in the Ottawa control group is slightly higher the OHF pilot group. So to make the statement that body checking is a real problem in Canadian hockey might not be as sound as you think.