Incidence of Head Contacts, Penalties, and Player Contact Behaviors in Youth Ice Hockey: Evaluating the 'Zero Tolerance for Head Contact' Policy Change

Background: To reduce the risk of concussion in youth ice hockey, Hockey Canada implemented a national “zero tolerance for head contact” (HC) policy in 2011. A previous cohort study revealed higher concussion rates after this implementation in players aged 11 to 14 years. However, it is unknown whether the elevated risk was due to higher HC rates or factors such as increased concussion awareness and reporting. Purpose: To compare the rates of primary and secondary HCs and HC policy enforcement in elite U15 ice hockey leagues (players Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 32 elite U15 games before (n2008-2009 = 16; 510 players) and after (n2013-2014 = 16; 486 players) HC policy implementation were video recorded. Videos were analyzed with validated criteria for identifying HC types (primary/direct contact by players [HC1], secondary/indirect contact via boards, glass, or ice surface [HC2]) and other player-to-player contact behavior. Referee-assessed penalties were cross-referenced with the official Hockey Canada casebook, and penalty types were displayed using proportions. Univariate Poisson regression (adjusted for cluster by team game, offset by game length [minutes]) was used to estimate HC incidence rates (IRs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) between cohorts. Results: A total of 506 HCs were analyzed, 261 before HC policy implementation (IR, 16.6/100 team minutes) and 245 after implementation (IR, 15.5/100 team minutes). The HC1 rate (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28) and HC2 rate (IRR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50-1.11) did not significantly differ before versus after implementation. Only 12.0% and 13.6% of HC1s were penalized pre- and postimplementation, respectively. Before implementation, HC1s were commonly penalized as roughing or elbowing penalties (59%), while after implementation, HC1s were penalized with the HC penalty (76%), and only 8% as roughing or elbowing. Conclusion: Despite implementation of the “zero tolerance for HC” policy, there was no difference in the rate of HC1s and HC2s or the proportion of HC1 penalized from before to after implementation. This research is instrumental in informing Hockey Canada’s future referee training and rule enforcement modifications.