Girls Playing On Boys Teams

[new2coachin]

I think the real issue that some are debating is that girls have a "choice", boys do not, and that is discrimination. If you really want to call it youth hockey, then eliminate all "girls" teams because right now we have girls (only girls) and youth (girls & boys). If things were equal, if a boy did not want to play pee wees their first year due to his size & checking, he would be allowed to tryout for the girls team or tryout for an older age group girls team. Not sure this would happen but the point is it would be an option, same as the girls having options. Now if an association does not have the numbers to field a girls team, by all means they play with the boys, there is not an option in that situation. In case anyone is wondering, yes I have a girl that has played and I have a son that has played, and no a girl did not beat him out of a roster spot. The discussion in my opinion is about equality, right now it is not equal.

[InigoMontoya]

If your boy doesn't want to get checked, I'll be right in your corner to fight for his equal right to put on the toepicks and join the girls on the cheerleading squad.

[inthestands]

There are distinct classifications in boys and girls hockey

What are the 'distinct classifications' differences between squirt and 10U?

One is specifically classified for girls. The other is not.

Although physical differences are minimal at that age, there are a multitude of other details that get started in these levels. Many times at those young ages, the girls would much prefer to play with girls if the adults allowed them too.

[mnhcp]

Fact, it's the law isn't it? So that's really the end of the story isn't it? Open to correction.

Fact, many girls programs suffer and honestly, there's no hope during certain years. Idealistic to say "improve the program" but often times it's not realistic.

Fact, many JV programs raid the girls programs to the detriment of those programs.

So it begs the question, how do we prevent girls from leaving hockey when the programs are weak in numbers, mismanaged, ignored by the board, lack competitiveness, the girls social thing and sabotoged by the High School?

For our daughter she was either was going to quit, or we'd have to move or jump over to the boys/youth.

There are some advantages to having a girl play on the boys team. Our daughter plays on youth/boys it motivates those boys beyond compare. As far as the locker room, there's no isolation to Siberia. She changes in the locker room with the boys as they all agree to have something proper on underneath. If boys wear their undies, she doesn't care. It's their problem, not hers. He really makes her part of the team and the boys respect it. It's all closely monitored. Coaches don't have to be j*** a**es about it. It's to everyones advantage to include everyone on the team. Thank you coach!

Trust me, those B players want her spot next year! Another motivator for the boys and great for the program. It also seems all of you are assuming the girl will always make the A team which of course is not the case.

I really wish there was some way for Minnesota Hockey to recognize that the community based model for girls simply does not work in many cases. Unlike the boys/youth where the numbers take care of alot of the issues most girls programs continue to suffer. Some say, sure it works but there are many girls that continue to leave hockey for reasons I mention. Minnesota Hockey may want to recognize it's not burnout, girls moving on, they're reaching "that age" when really it's weak programs!

Had our daughter not moved to the youth program she'd be done. This still may be the case when she moves on to high school where the problem will resurface. Will we move, go private, open enroll or leave hockey. All are equal in possibilities.

[mnhcp]

I understand your frustration, but as a MH board member I cannot advise anyone to opt for a law suit.
As president of Bemidji youth hockey when the I and the board were approached about a girl that wanted to play with the 'boys' team, I told them they would have to sue me, because I would not allow it.
But I cannot give that advise to anyone.

(We needed the girls to play with the girls so we could have a strong girls program. This was at the 12U level - or whatever it would have been at that time.)

Based on your previous quotes, I had the impression Eliot70 was a reasonable person. But when you admit to knowingly violating USA Hockey rules and suggest the only remedy is an ugly and costly lawsuit, I am disgusted.

If you don't like the rules, work with the governing body to have them changed. Of course, you will have to provide a persuasive argument accomplish your objective and that will be difficult. Don't violate the rules and use your position as an association president to bully someone.

One remedy was an immediate response to a father. His desire would have not helped his daughter. My response helped the young programand his daughter.
The other remedy would have been long-term and never would have accomplished anything.
They could have appealed to MH and won and then both sides would have lost.
Before the end of the year the father told me that was the best thing for his daughter.

So if you want to call me out for doing the 'right thing' fine, but until you have to make the tough decisions (fill in the blank).

Wow. Just because the father said "it was the best thing for his daughter" and it all worked out doesn't make it right when it's the law. There are other girls where it isn't in the best interest of the girl. Good for you but very ballzy!

[woogieboogiewoogie]

I thought the whole idea of youth hockey is to develop the kids(boys and girls) to the point where they can play HS Hockey one day, if that's their goal? So why does it matter where girls play? I don't think for one second that many (if any at all)boys would want to play girls hockey(mom might like the idea though and dad wouldn't allow it ). It's not like associations have 25 girls that want to play boys hockey, it's usually one or two maybe three at the most from what I have seen. It is possible that alot of the girls that choose to play boys do so because it might be more fun, challenging, and more competitive. Yes, competitive! Just like IJKH . I won't let your moniker fool me IJKH.
This topic has been around for years and there will always be girls "messing" up the boys teams or girls playing on boys teams somewhere. I've heard it all. Yes my daughter played boys hockey. Big Deal! Oh, don't worry IJKH! That roster spot Darla took from Jonny when they were 11? Jonny will get her back when they are grown and are applying for the same job.

[elliott70]

Based on your previous quotes, I had the impression Eliot70 was a reasonable person. But when you admit to knowingly violating USA Hockey rules and suggest the only remedy is an ugly and costly lawsuit, I am disgusted.

If you don't like the rules, work with the governing body to have them changed. Of course, you will have to provide a persuasive argument accomplish your objective and that will be difficult. Don't violate the rules and use your position as an association president to bully someone.

One remedy was an immediate response to a father. His desire would have not helped his daughter. My response helped the young programand his daughter.
The other remedy would have been long-term and never would have accomplished anything.
They could have appealed to MH and won and then both sides would have lost.
Before the end of the year the father told me that was the best thing for his daughter.

So if you want to call me out for doing the 'right thing' fine, but until you have to make the tough decisions (fill in the blank).

Wow. Just because the father said "it was the best thing for his daughter" and it all worked out doesn't make it right when it's the law. There are other girls where it isn't in the best interest of the girl. Good for you but very ballzy!

Well it is a USAH rule not a law.

10 years at the helm I made a lot of decisions - most to the best - and ballzy, perhaps, but all the decisons were based on good for the kid and the kids, not once was it for me or mine.

And remember any decision made by me was subject to review at the district, state and USAH level.

[new2coachin]

If your boy doesn't want to get checked, I'll be right in your corner to fight for his equal right to put on the toepicks and join the girls on the cheerleading squad.

As for me, I did not have an issue. If I did, I prefer someone with intellect over sarcasm.

[mnhcp]

MN Hockey Rule ie Law same thing if you know what I mean.

In all seriousness, I thought in a post when this was debated a year or 2 ago, it was a Rights Issue but I'll happily stand corrected.

Elliot, did your decision ever really reach those levels or was the decision an in-house no?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha, I found this thread from when I was debating this all about 1 year ago.

circa 2007 ushsho thread:

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... ht=#289633

Its allowed by state law.
________________________________

Subd. 3. Exceptions. (a) Notwithstanding any other state law to the contrary, in athletic programs operated by educational institutions or public services and designed for participants 12 years old or older or in the 7th grade or above, it is not an unfair discriminatory practice to restrict membership on an athletic team to participants of one sex whose overall athletic opportunities have previously been limited.

(d) If two teams are provided in the same sport, one of these teams may be restricted to members of a sex whose overall athletic opportunities have previously been limited, and members
of either sex shall be permitted to try out for the other team.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/ ... &year=2007

circa 2008 ushsho thread:

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 54d0a437b3

(b) When an educational institution or a public service provides athletic teams for children 11 years old or younger or in the 6th grade or below, those teams shall be operated without restrictions on the basis of sex, except that when overall athletic opportunities for one sex have previously been limited and there is a demonstrated interest by members of that sex to participate on a team restricted to members of that sex, the educational institution or public service may provide a team restricted to members of that sex.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Huhh? To much legal jargin but I suspect I'm half right.

[InigoMontoya]

new2coachin Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the real issue that some are debating is that girls have a "choice", boys do not, and that is discrimination. If you really want to call it youth hockey, then eliminate all "girls" teams because right now we have girls (only girls) and youth (girls & boys). If things were equal, if a boy did not want to play pee wees their first year due to his size & checking, he would be allowed to tryout for the girls team or tryout for an older age group girls team. Not sure this would happen but the point is it would be an option, same as the girls having options. Now if an association does not have the numbers to field a girls team, by all means they play with the boys, there is not an option in that situation. In case anyone is wondering, yes I have a girl that has played and I have a son that has played, and no a girl did not beat him out of a roster spot. The discussion in my opinion is about equality, right now it is not equal.

new2coachin Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:31 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

InigoMontoya wrote:
If your boy doesn't want to get checked, I'll be right in your corner to fight for his equal right to put on the toepicks and join the girls on the cheerleading squad.


As for me, I did not have an issue. If I did, I prefer someone with intellect over sarcasm.

Your point was that it would be equal if boys could choose to play girls' hockey. How do you respond intelligently to that? It's not about "equal", it's about fair. Provide opportunities to the girls as are offered to the boys, that would be fair, if it's not possible, then offer the girls the boys' opportunities. To say the only way to make it equal is to offer boys the chance to have less opportunity is ignorant (which means not offered by someone with intellect over sarcasm).

[inthestands]

Elliott70, I applaud your decision making responsibility and your will to do what's right for the player. It's too that approach isn't used more today..

For those that don't have a daughter playing, there is no way to understand what the true issues are. I had two boys go through the full hockey process. I coached them at youth levels, and never understood all the details related to the girls programs..

There are differences in every corner of the girls program as they compare to the boys. Coaching, team make up, numbers, ability spectrum, locker room behavior, on ice behavior, learning curves, all around attitudes, and on and on...

Every scenario is different, and a resolution that works here may not work over there. It takes a common sense approach, and a true understanding of all things concerned.

Overall if the player has a goal of high school hockey, and the end plan is to play with the girls team, wouldn't it make sense to participate in that program in hopes to make the player and the program the best they can both be?

[mnhcp]

"Elliott70, I applaud your decision making responsibility and your will to do what's right for the player. It's too that approach isn't used more today..

For those that don't have a daughter playing, there is no way to understand what the true issues are. I had two boys go through the full hockey process. I coached them at youth levels, and never understood all the details related to the girls programs..

There are differences in every corner of the girls program as they compare to the boys. Coaching, team make up, numbers, ability spectrum, locker room behavior, on ice behavior, learning curves, all around attitudes, and on and on...

Every scenario is different, and a resolution that works here may not work over there. It takes a common sense approach, and a true understanding of all things concerned.

Overall if the player has a goal of high school hockey, and the end plan is to play with the girls team, wouldn't it make sense to participate in that program in hopes to make the player and the program the best they can both be?"

Even if illegal. Furthermore, how does he know what's in the best interest of the player.

Yes, every situation is different but not sure if you're willing to consider?

Lastly, making a girls high school varsity hockey team in alot of situations isn't much of a goal. Numbers, talent, etc. Some girls simply want to be better then that and the opportunities available to them under MN Hockey restrictions curbs those opportunities as they are forced to play with girls not serious about excellence and hockey.

[inthestands]

How does Elliott know what's in the best interest of the player?
Personal knowlege and experience.

Yes every situation is different yet in your points you're not willing to consider those.
Not sure why you feel that way? I've given my opinion from past experience. Nothing more.

Lastly, making a girls high school hockey team isn't much of a goal
I didn't say "make", I said play for. I understand the difference.

Believe it or not, some girls want to excel and aren't playing entirely for the social aspect.
My daughter would fall into that category. Not every female player does. My opinions voiced are what I feel best overall suit programs and players, not a personal situation.

After all, isn't that what the boys want and why wouldn't they want to play against the best (even if it happens to be a girl).
Why would what boys want matter? I thought we were talking about girls playing hockey..

[minorleagr]

Now that we all know what the boys parents are thinking and what the girls Dad thinks.

POLL !

[mnhcp]

Now that we all know what the boys parents are thinking and what the girls Dad thinks.

POLL !

That's silly! We already know the result. It's a legal thing still isn't it?

The poll is going to be like 4 to 1 in favor of separation with a 10% deviation depending on where the poll is placed.

NO POLL PLEASE. It's silly.

[PWD10]

b) When an educational institution or a public service provides athletic teams for children 11 years old or younger or in the 6th grade or below, those teams shall be operated without restrictions on the basis of sex, except that when overall athletic opportunities for one sex have previously been limited and there is a demonstrated interest by members of that sex to participate on a team restricted to members of that sex, the educational institution or public service may provide a team restricted to members of that sex.

I don't think a Nonprofit youth hockey organization quantifies as a public service or a educational institution.

[new2coachin]

new2coachin Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the real issue that some are debating is that girls have a "choice", boys do not, and that is discrimination. If you really want to call it youth hockey, then eliminate all "girls" teams because right now we have girls (only girls) and youth (girls & boys). If things were equal, if a boy did not want to play pee wees their first year due to his size & checking, he would be allowed to tryout for the girls team or tryout for an older age group girls team. Not sure this would happen but the point is it would be an option, same as the girls having options. Now if an association does not have the numbers to field a girls team, by all means they play with the boys, there is not an option in that situation. In case anyone is wondering, yes I have a girl that has played and I have a son that has played, and no a girl did not beat him out of a roster spot. The discussion in my opinion is about equality, right now it is not equal.

new2coachin Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:31 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

InigoMontoya wrote:
If your boy doesn't want to get checked, I'll be right in your corner to fight for his equal right to put on the toepicks and join the girls on the cheerleading squad.


As for me, I did not have an issue. If I did, I prefer someone with intellect over sarcasm.

Your point was that it would be equal if boys could choose to play girls' hockey. How do you respond intelligently to that? It's not about "equal", it's about fair. Provide opportunities to the girls as are offered to the boys, that would be fair, if it's not possible, then offer the girls the boys' opportunities. To say the only way to make it equal is to offer boys the chance to have less opportunity is ignorant (which means not offered by someone with intellect over sarcasm).

No, my point was that girls have choices, either play girls or youth hockey when both are offered. Boys do not have a choice (fair or equal? you decide, does not matter to me). I am not advocating boys playing on girls teams, it was an example used to make a point that girls have more options than the boys, not equal & not fair.

[minorleagr]

Bingo !

[mnhcp]

b) When an educational institution or a public service provides athletic teams for children 11 years old or younger or in the 6th grade or below, those teams shall be operated without restrictions on the basis of sex, except that when overall athletic opportunities for one sex have previously been limited and there is a demonstrated interest by members of that sex to participate on a team restricted to members of that sex, the educational institution or public service may provide a team restricted to members of that sex.

I don't think a Nonprofit youth hockey organization quantifies as a public service or a educational institution.

I don't either but I bet someone else does? In the old threads I believe they thought it did. Is there a lawyer guy out there?

[ilike2score]

All kids boys and girls should play together thru pee wees. When you hit Pee wee have a separate girl category, Girls should never play Pee Wee or higher hockey where checking is allowed. Simple.

[inthestands]

All kids boys and girls should play together thru pee wees. When you hit Pee wee have a separate girl category, Girls should never play Pee Wee or higher hockey where checking is allowed. Simple.

I wonder if your daughter would like to play with the boys at the mite level?

Through research, we found many don't. As soon as the girls and boys were split at the mite level, our participation from girls playing more than 1 or 2 years increased significantly. It's continued to grow ever since creating the seperation.

At those younger levels, the boys are much more aggressive and the girls very rarely touch the puck, unless you have one of those few girls at a young age that is very aggressive. Mite level hockey is a learning experience, but never touching the puck takes most of the fun out of it.

[InigoMontoya]

Through research, we found many don't.

I'd like to see the statistical ananlysis of a survey given to six year old girls.

At those younger levels, the boys are much more aggressive and the girls very rarely touch the puck, unless you have one of those few girls at a young age that is very aggressive. Mite level hockey is a learning experience, but never touching the puck takes most of the fun out of it.

I really have a hard time figuring out the point you're trying to make. At the mite level all the kids should be touching the puck a bunch during practices. Hockey is an aggressive sport - boys or girls; my guess is that when your passive 8U girls move to 10U they are getting the puck taken from them by 10U girls that developed in a mite environment and had to learn to be hockey players.

[inthestands]

I'd like to see the statistical ananlysis of a survey given to six year old girls.

Wasn't a survey. Number of girls playing 8 years ago, 5 years ago and today. It's grown significantly since we split the boys and girls at the mite level. Not rocket science.

I really have a hard time figuring out the point you're trying to make. At the mite level all the kids should be touching the puck a bunch during practices. Hockey is an aggressive sport - boys or girls; my guess is that when your passive 8U girls move to 10U they are getting the puck taken from them by 10U girls that developed in a mite environment and had to learn to be hockey players.

The point - Our youngest mites play cross ice "games" once per week, the older ones play a full ice contest. The girls very rarely touch the puck when playing together at a young age. Passive 8U girls touch the puck more playing with girls, than mixed. It really isn't that complex.

When girls play with girls, they learn to be hockey players as well. There's just more of them to play. Or at least that's what we've seen over time.

[StillAnEagle]

Why would a U10 girl (for example) opt to play on an A team with the boys when she could move up and play U12? BTW, I have 2 girls and a boy in hockey - so I sympathize with both sides. But really... just play with and be a star with the girls - they need you.

[Night Train]

Every situation is different so there is no one size fits all solution. Girls numbers are growing so hopefully all associations have enough girls to field teams in the future. Some associations have 35 12U aged girls and some have 3. The association with 3 may not want to send them over to the neighboring association and lose the revenue from that family. They allow a tryout and if the girl wins a spot they keep the revenue. If 1 doesn't make the team then they send that one family packing next door. Maybe the family doesn't want that. Maybe the family has 3 skaters, always at the same arena, or two, and don't want to register one single child next door and constantly drive to the neighboring community. Maybe the neighboring association has what they say are sufficient numbers. That's an issue because neighboring associations have been known to protect spots for their own girls regardless of ability and a tryout. I presume it's hard to take 2 strong players from the neighboring association and send to of your own weaker player families packing to a neighboring association. Try that one time. Note, I think Blaine may have done that. Took some girls from another association at the expense of their own member families. Ouch.

All of these discussions are tied to numbers and the same thing happens with boys as the registered numbers are rarely perfect. There's always an extra few and where do they go?

But, they tried out and made the team. Whether you have 100 boys at PeeWee, or 22 boys at PeeWee, if a female player tries out and makes the team she deserves it.

Don't try and dummy down the girls. Boys often have an advantage as association boys numbers are larger so most can place the boy player on a team of players with like abilities. Girls may not have sufficient numbers so you may have 12 girls close in ability with 2 stronger and 2 beginners. A bigger spread in ability. In that instance the girls should be placed on an available team, in her assocation, according to her ability, not sex. Same for the boys. If a girl worked hard and developed their game enough to earn a spot on a boys team celebrate how cool that is and congratulate what must be a pretty special girl player.

There's a huge baby factor in all these discussions and posts. Make sure your son is working on his game because there's a girl trying out for his spot. And, she's good.