Since most hockey players devote their times and energy to be ready for the game after several practices of body checking, if it is forbidden, their aspiration will be useless. For instance, the mother of four sons, Katherine Devlin reports,“ her 10-year-old son Sean was “devastated.” Sean had been preparing for his first hockey season with body checking” (Feschuk, Dave 2013). The chance of getting harmed will be lessen while having full of equipment on the body. To be clear, Devlin describes, “And I would prefer they’re out on the schoolyard or in a park or in my living room, for that matter” (Feschuk, 2013). This quotation clearly demonstrates how parents truly believe in body checking. However, Devlin forgot that Helmet couldn’t protect children from getting brain damage. As an illustration, Cherry utters, “Brains are delicate, and they run our bodies and minds. When they are flung around inside the skull, which is weirdly enough rough on the inside, they don’t do too well” (The Huffington Post, 2013). Not only is body checking prevention, but one of the skills. Devlin points out that “ I saw my son’s team using hitting as just another skill” (Feschuk, 2013).
Despite to the expectation and safety for the game, Mokrzynski argues that “ If Peewee coaches don’t have to teach body checking, they will be able to “spend more time and effort on making them better players” (Bergsma, 2013). In this case, he doesn’t have a specific data to support his arguments how the ban can have a huge impact on players. It is true that the ban can eradicate the risks for players at Peewee level, but it will be hard to make a player to be faster and stronger at the Bantam level since most players at Bantam level are adult. In conclusion, while Mokryznski asserts that body checking can diminish the development of hockey, Cherry concern is health