While bodychecking has been given a permanent game misconduct at the recreational level, the voted against the new resolution.

鈥淚t has been a hot button issue,鈥� admitted LMHA president Kevin Green.

鈥淲e were in favour of keeping bodychecking as the status quo.鈥�

Delegates representing the 42 n-member minor hockey associations voted 123-39 in favour of the ban, which takes effect for the 2012-13 hockey season.

The vote was held on Sunday at a general meeting held by the PCAHA.

LMHA voted against the resolution based on parental response to a survey they issued to the association鈥檚 approximate 1,200 members.

Green said 545 responded with mixed results: 52 per cent wanted to keep hitting in the game while 46 per cent favoured its removal.

鈥淭he membership in general was in favour of it, so we voted against the resolution,鈥� he said.

Hockey Canada prohibits bodychecking below the peewee (11/12) level and in female hockey. Various other jurisdictions further restrict bodychecking at other age or competitive levels.

The new rule will restrict hitting to only the rep hockey level for peewee, bantam and midget.

Green said the LMHA would have preferred to offer two levels of C, or house hockey: hitting and non-hitting, like some other leagues have done, but is not offered in the Fraser Valley.

He proposed that at the meeting, but was quickly shot down.

鈥淭he best option for us was the creation of a non-bodychecking division,鈥� Green said.

鈥淲e thought that would give people the choice.鈥�

Green has received some feedback from 91原创 parents  on the decision and it has been negative.

鈥淚 have had a few very angry emails about the decision,鈥� he said, adding it is not a huge sample size, however.

Quite a few of the midget (15-17) players are upset.

鈥淔or a lot of them, (hitting) is why they like to play,鈥� Green said. 鈥淚t is part of the game for them and a lot of them have threatened not to play next year and that is my big concern, that our midget division is going to seriously decrease in numbers because of the decision.

鈥淲e don鈥檛 know; obviously time will tell.鈥�

George Olson has a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old in the sport and he is concerned the new rule will affect the quality of play.

鈥淚 think this ruins the game,鈥� he said.

鈥淎 team only needs one good skilled player now; a kid is just going to dangle all the way, end to end and not pass it and just score.

鈥淚t takes away a lot of passing; bodychecking is a real leveler in the game.鈥�

Another problem he sees is that it will be hard for a player to try out for the rep team once if they don鈥檛 make it right away.

He said his younger son was hoping to try out for the rep midget team in two years, after getting one year of midget under his belt.

鈥淥nce a kid is in house, if they don鈥檛 make it one year, they will never make it again because the game is so different with the hitting and they are not doing any hitting in the house league,鈥� Olson said. 鈥�

Those kids that have aspirations of trying to get better and move up to rep never will.鈥�

On the other side of the argument is Donna Guay, who has three boys, ages 7, 8 and 14.

None of them currently play the sport, but she said they may be inclined to with the new rules.

Guay鈥檚 husband used to referee minor hockey in the Lower Mainland so she has seen the size discrepancies among players.

鈥淩eally their bodies aren鈥檛 developed enough and I think it is a safety issue,鈥� she said.

鈥淓very kid is different. I look at my 14-year-old compared to other 14-year-old boys and he is smaller compared to some of his counterparts. And if he were to play hockey, and have some 180-pound 15-year-old boy slam him ... it is going to hurt.鈥�