Separate the Decision From the Outcome

A Bad Outcome Does Not Automatically Mean a Bad Decision.™

U13 is where hockey decision-making becomes more complex.

Players are dealing with increased speed, pressure, physical contact, Team tactics, and consequences. One decision can quickly produce a scoring opportunity—or a goal against.

That makes it tempting for adults to evaluate every decision according to what happened next.

A pass is called intelligent when it reaches a teammate and careless when it is intercepted. A line change is accepted when the opponent does not score and condemned when a goal follows. A defenceman who carries the puck is praised after creating offense and criticized after losing possession.

But the quality of a decision cannot be determined entirely by its outcome.

At U11, coaches begin by asking what the Player saw. At U13, that conversation expands.

The coach must examine:

1. The information available
2. The options reasonably available
3. The decision selected
4. The quality of the execution
5. The resulting outcome

These are connected—but they are not identical.

Why Outcome-Based Coaching Is Dangerous

Outcome-based coaching teaches players that the result determines whether the decision was acceptable.

That creates several problems.

Players may:

• Stop attempting creative plays
• Move the puck immediately to avoid responsibility
• Refuse to carry the puck through pressure
• Hide in safe positions
• Judge teammates by results alone
• Become afraid of mistakes
• Look toward the bench after every decision
• Play to avoid criticism rather than create an advantage

The result can be a team that appears structured but cannot solve changing situations independently.

The Hockey Resource™ has previously argued that organizations should create respect for the game—not fear of failure.

U13 players need accountability. They also need enough confidence to recognize and attempt reasonable plays.

The Five Questions Every U13 Coach Should Ask

Before judging a decision, ask:

1. What information was available?
2. What was the player trying to accomplish?
3. Were reasonable alternatives considered?
4. Was the decision consistent with the team’s plan?
5. Would we still criticize the decision if the outcome had been favourable?

That final question is essential.

Hockey people frequently judge the same decision differently depending entirely on what happened next.

If a risky pass reaches the intended teammate, the player may be praised for creativity. If it is intercepted, the player may be accused of irresponsibility.

The pass may have been a good decision, a poor decision or a reasonable risk. The outcome alone cannot provide the answer.

The U13 Decision Review

The image accompanying this article identifies three central areas:

Information

What could the player reasonably know at the time?

• Where were teammates?
• Where was the pressure?
• How much time was available?
• What was the score?
• Where was the puck?
• What communication did the player hear?
• What did the player see before receiving possession?

Video may reveal information that was not available from the player’s position. Coaches must evaluate what the player could see—not only what became obvious afterward.

Options

Which choices were realistically available?

• Pass
• Carry the puck
• Protect possession
• Shoot
• Delay
• Chip the puck into space
• Reverse direction
• Support a teammate
• Change lines
• Remain on the ice

Not every theoretical option was reasonable at game speed.

Execution

Did the player successfully perform the intended action?

A player may choose the correct pass but deliver it inaccurately. That is an execution problem—not necessarily a decision problem.

A player may also execute a poor decision successfully. The completed pass does not automatically make the choice intelligent.

Four Ways to Evaluate a Play

This prevents the coach from allowing the scoreboard to perform the evaluation.

A favourable result may hide a poor habit. An unfavourable result may conceal progress.

Example: The Pass That Was Intercepted

A U13 defenceman retrieves the puck and attempts a pass through the middle. The pass is intercepted and leads to a scoring chance.

The emotional response may be:

“That was a careless decision with the puck.”

That statement assumes the player was not paying attention or did not care. It may also be inaccurate.

A better conversation begins:

Coach: “What did you see?”
Player: “I saw our centre coming low, and I thought the forechecker was going toward the boards.”
Coach: “What happened after you started the pass?”
Player: “The forechecker changed direction and got a stick on it.”
Coach: “That helps me understand your decision. What other option became available when the forechecker moved?”
Player: “I could have reversed it behind the net.”
Coach: “Good. Let’s work on recognizing that second option earlier.”

The coach now knows the player:

• Recognized the centre
• Misread the forechecker’s movement
• Did not identify the reverse option quickly enough
• Requires practice reading changing pressure

That is useful development information.

Example: A Reasonable Decision With Poor Execution

A forward enters the offensive zone with a teammate driving the net. The player recognizes the passing lane and attempts the pass, but the puck goes behind the teammate.

The coach can say:

“You recognized the right opportunity. The pass did not connect, but I want you to continue seeing that option. We’ll work on delivering it while moving.”

The player does not need to be discouraged from attempting the pass.

The decision should be reinforced. The execution should be developed.

This distinction supports the principle that confidence is built through meaningful challenges.

Example: A Good Outcome From a Poor Decision

A player attempts a low-percentage pass while under pressure. The puck strikes an opponent’s skate, changes direction and reaches a teammate for a breakaway.

The result is favourable.

That does not mean the original decision should be reinforced.

The coach can say:

“The result helped us, but let’s review the decision. What information did you have before making that pass?”

U13 players must learn that an accidental success should not automatically become a repeated habit.

Coaches who correct only plays that fail may unintentionally reward poor decisions that happen to succeed.

Example: The Line Change That Leads to a Goal

A player changes lines while the puck appears to be safely controlled deep in the offensive zone. Possession changes unexpectedly, the opponent counterattacks and scores.

It is easy to say:

“That was a terrible change.”

But the coach should first ask:

• Did the player believe possession was secure?
• Was the player called to the bench?
• How long had the player been on the ice?
• Did another teammate also begin changing?
• Was the change consistent with the team’s standard?
• Did the bench communicate?
• Would the change have been criticized if the opponent had not scored?

The change may still require correction. But the outcome cannot be the only evidence.

This principle also applies to coaches. An unfortunate line change directed by the bench does not automatically mean the coaching decision was unreasonable.

Players and coaches should be evaluated using the same fair standard.

Keep Most Complex Feedback Out of the Game

U13 players may be capable of discussing decisions, but the bench is often the wrong environment for a detailed review.

During games, players are:

• Emotionally involved
• Physically tired
• Watching the next play
• Preparing for another shift
• Processing several instructions
• Communicating with teammates

A coach who provides a long explanation may reduce the player’s confidence or create excessive thinking during the next shift.

Use immediate game feedback when:

• Safety is involved
• The player requires one urgent correction
• A team-wide tactical adjustment is necessary
• The same situation will likely occur again immediately
• The player asks for clarification

Otherwise, record the moment and review it later.

USA Hockey’s discussion of correcting young players’ mistakes emphasizes that correction should match both the player and the situation.

Let Players Explain How Feedback Affects Them

A U13 player should be able to tell the coach:

“When I receive a lot of feedback during the game, I lose confidence and stop playing naturally. I would rather review those situations during practice.”

That statement should begin a conversation—not produce a negative judgment about the player’s coachability.

The coach can establish an individual feedback agreement:

• One short cue during games
• Questions from the assistant coach when appropriate
• Detailed review during practice
• Video discussion away from teammates
• A written development priority for the week

Players remain accountable. The feedback is simply delivered in a way that is more likely to help.

Use the Assistant Coach to Capture the Player’s Response

The head coach may need to keep watching the game.

In that situation, the assistant coach can ask:

“What did you see, and what were you trying to accomplish?”

The assistant should record the response in two or three sentences.

Example:

Situation: Second-period neutral-zone turnover
Player’s intention: Pass to winger behind defender
Information missed: Second defender closing from middle
Practice requirement: Scan before receiving; identify both defenders

If the same issue appears repeatedly, the staff now has evidence of a development pattern.

The player should not repeatedly hear the same criticism without receiving a practice activity designed to address it.

Use Video to Evaluate What Was Actually Available

Many youth hockey games are recorded. Video can help coaches and players review decisions more fairly.

Pause the clip before the player acts.

Ask:

• “What information is available now?”
• “Where is the pressure?”
• “Which teammates are available?”
• “What options are reasonable?”
• “What do you expect to happen next?”

Then allow the video to continue.

Do not begin with:

“Watch what you did wrong.”

That tells the player the conclusion before the review begins.

Video should be used to explore the decision—not prosecute the player.

Hockey Canada offers age-specific materials through its U13 Player Pathway, emphasizing concepts, habits, tactics and decision-making within a progressive development environment.

Turn the Review Into Practice

If coaches identify the decision problem, they must create opportunities to practise it.

Examples include:

• Two-option breakout activities
• Small-area possession games
• Odd-player situations
• Pressure-recognition drills
• Games with changing numbers
• Retrievals with forechecking pressure
• Transition games requiring players to scan
• Delayed-support activities
• Competitive rebound situations

USA Hockey identifies constant decision-making as one of the elements of a productive practice.

Hockey Canada’s small-area-game resources similarly create game-like situations in which players must read, react and adapt.

Players do not develop decision-making by being told every answer.

They develop it by repeatedly gathering information, selecting options and experiencing the consequences.

Do Not Turn Video Review Into Public Embarrassment

Team video can be useful when the objective is teaching a shared concept.

Individual mistakes should not become entertainment for teammates.

Before showing a clip publicly, coaches should ask:

• Is this lesson relevant to the whole team?
• Can the player be discussed respectfully?
• Am I teaching the situation or blaming the individual?
• Would I show a similar clip involving a star player?
• Could the lesson be taught without identifying the player?

Calling out one U13 player in front of teammates may discourage honest participation and future risk-taking.

The organization should not build systems around fear.

Accountability Is Still Required

Separating decisions from outcomes does not mean every decision is acceptable.

A player may:

• Ignore available information
• Repeat a reviewed error
• Reject a team expectation
• Avoid effort
• Make an unsafe choice
• Refuse to participate in the learning process

Coaches should address these situations directly.

A useful response is:

“We have reviewed this situation and practised the recognition. Tell me what prevented you from applying it this time.”

That creates accountability without immediately assigning a negative personal label.

If the problem continues, the coach should revisit:

• Whether the player understands
• Whether the player has the required skill
• Whether practice realistically recreated the situation
• Whether the feedback was clear
• Whether the player needs individual support
• Whether a team standard was deliberately ignored

Accountability should be based on evidence—not frustration.

Parents Must Stop Coaching Only From the Result

Parents often see the same play differently depending on what happened next.

A pass producing a goal may be called brilliant. The same pass producing a turnover may dominate the ride home.

Better questions include:

• “What did you see?”
• “What were you trying to accomplish?”
• “Was another option available?”
• “Did the play work differently than you expected?”
• “Would you make the same choice again?”

Parents do not need to supply the answer.

Listening may reveal that the player already understands the situation.

One game or one mistake cannot define a developing athlete, as explained in The Scoreboard Doesn’t Define You.

Coaches Must Apply the Standard to Themselves

A coach may:

• Change lines at an unfortunate time
• Select an unsuccessful matchup
• Choose a system the team cannot execute
• Provide unclear instructions
• Fail to prepare players for an opponent
• Make an adjustment that produces an unexpected result

The coach should ask the same questions:

• What information did I have?
• What was I trying to accomplish?
• What reasonable alternatives existed?
• Was my decision consistent with our plan?
• Would I criticize it if the outcome had been favourable?

Leadership credibility increases when coaches take responsibility for their own decisions.

The influence of a coach extends far beyond systems and scoreboards, as described in The True Influence of a Hockey Coach.

Signs U13 Feedback Is Working

Effective U13 feedback produces players who increasingly:

• Explain what information they used
• Identify reasonable alternatives
• Separate decisions from execution
• Evaluate favourable outcomes honestly
• Accept corrections without feeling personally attacked
• Recognize repeated patterns
• Participate in video review
• Apply learning during practice
• Continue attempting creative solutions
• Recover emotionally from difficult outcomes
• Take responsibility for avoidable errors

The objective is not mistake-free hockey.

The objective is increasingly informed hockey.

The Hockey Resource™ U13 Coaching Standard

At U13, coaches must stop allowing the result to become the complete evaluation.

Before judging a player’s decision, examine:

Information. Options. Decision. Execution. Outcome.

Ask what the player saw. Listen to what the player was trying to accomplish. Consider whether the option was reasonable with the information available at the time.

If the decision was reasonable, protect it—even when execution fails.

If the decision was questionable, examine it—even when the result succeeds.

If information was missed, teach the player where and when to look.

Then record the learning point and recreate the situation during practice.

A Bad Outcome Does Not Automatically Mean a Bad Decision.™

That statement protects more than confidence. It protects fair evaluation, intelligent development and the player’s willingness to keep thinking.