HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Hypothetical Question:

A player takes a year off from Association Hockey to play at MN Made for a year. His Association gets mad and tells him he's not welcome back next year. First of all, can they do that? Secondly, if that happened would MN Hockey then allow him to play for another Association that would accept him? Thanks.

Jeffy95 wrote:Hypothetical Question:

A player takes a year off from Association Hockey to play at MN Made for a year. His Association gets mad and tells him he's not welcome back next year. First of all, can they do that? Secondly, if that happened would MN Hockey then allow him to play for another Association that would accept him? Thanks.

No, they cannot black ball him.

Assuming that he plays where he lives and goes to school AND that association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver), the player can move on. What level he can play at probably depends on the new association's rules.

elliott70 wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:Hypothetical Question:

A player takes a year off from Association Hockey to play at MN Made for a year. His Association gets mad and tells him he's not welcome back next year. First of all, can they do that? Secondly, if that happened would MN Hockey then allow him to play for another Association that would accept him? Thanks.

No, they cannot black ball him.

Assuming that he plays where he lives and goes to school AND that association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver), the player can move on. What level he can play at probably depends on the new association's rules.

Thank you!

association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver)

If the association doesn't sign the waiver, must he be allowed to play there.

Also, isn't the DD the Great and Powerful Oz in this situation?

InigoMontoya wrote:

association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver)

If the association doesn't sign the waiver, must he be allowed to play there.

Also, isn't the DD the Great and Powerful Oz in this situation?

I don't think the home association has any basis to restrict the player from having full rights in their home association. I remember about 7 years ago when Minnesota Made mite players were concerned about not being eligible to come back to our association and being kept off of the squirt A team as punishment. Several registered for both programs even though they made very few of the association ice times. Our DD made it very clear you could not punish these kids for coming back.

saveforcollege wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver)

If the association doesn't sign the waiver, must he be allowed to play there.

Also, isn't the DD the Great and Powerful Oz in this situation?

I don't think the home association has any basis to restrict the player from having full rights in their home association. I remember about 7 years ago when Minnesota Made mite players were concerned about not being eligible to come back to our association and being kept off of the squirt A team as punishment. Several registered for both programs even though they made very few of the association ice times. Our DD made it very clear you could not punish these kids for coming back.

They actually can kick you out of the Association. What happens after that is up to the District Director. But I can't imagine any DD wouldn't allow a kid to go play somewhere else. Would probably be better than being punished in the home Association.

InigoMontoya wrote:

association does not want him (thus allowing a waiver)

If the association doesn't sign the waiver, must he be allowed to play there.

Also, isn't the DD the Great and Powerful Oz in this situation?

Yes, the DD has a great deal of power. Some DD's just based on their character have more power in reality but in theory they all control this situation.

It's been my experience most boards would be more than happy to wave a kid out of their association versus "holding a grudge".

Now have their top teams been known to "pass" on a kid just coming into (or back into) the association and take a kid who's been there since mites? Absolutely. Do I blame the board? Absolutely not.

Any kid...I mean parent... jumping ship on their association for "greener pastures" should not complain when they come back to the association and their jersey isn't waiting for them.

My advice...Once you make the decision to leave an association, don't come back.

The beautiful words of a true servant.

yesiplayedhockey wrote:It's been my experience most boards would be more than happy to wave a kid out of their association versus "holding a grudge".

Now have their top teams been known to "pass" on a kid just coming into (or back into) the association and take a kid who's been there since mites? Absolutely. Do I blame the board? Absolutely not.

Any kid...I mean parent... jumping ship on their association for "greener pastures" should not complain when they come back to the association and their jersey isn't waiting for them.

My advice...Once you make the decision to leave an association, don't come back.

If they did indeed leave for "greener pastures", such as winning more games or trophies then I could probably agree with you. But not all kids leave for that reason. In those other cases I think the Association should welcome them back. The Associations are supposed to be there for the kids. Not the other way around.

I agree 100% the association should take them back(assuming they left on good terms.) But so often is the case this whole jumping around is caused by a dad who may have "slightly" overvalued the skill level of his kid. Rather than just stick it out, they shop the other associations for what they perceive is a better deal.

I'd like to see associations come up with a policy that says if you leave our association for one year and come back we will welcome you with open arms. But for that first year that you come back, you will play down one level. I think this could help eliminate parents moving back and forth.

Obviously I'm a huge fan of kids playing hockey in the city they live. All this moving around, shopping your kid, renting apartments, etc etc etc isn't doing association hockey any good. Winter tier hockey is just starting to get some traction and I personally would like to see associations do everything they can to help keep community based hockey the premier model in Minnesota

ttt

yesiplayedhockey wrote:

I'd like to see associations come up with a policy that says if you leave our association for one year and come back we will welcome you with open arms. But for that first year that you come back, you will play down one level. I think this could help eliminate parents moving back and forth.

This is a great way to make sure a kid never comes back. Or is that the intent? What about a kid that plays for another association because his home association doesn't have an A team? So if he comes back the next year he has to play on a B2 team? I guess I don't see a huge amount of moving back and forth to the point of penalizing a kid. The waiver situation makes it fairly difficult to move around unless someone is moving their household every year.

I think there is always extreme cases where it may make sense to waiver out...But okay I will play along. Let's say they don't have an A team...I say just play with his buddies on the B team. What harm will that do? Because if the parent is moving the kid out because lets say they don't have a squirt A team then comes back for pee wee's chances are the parent will be upset the association doesn't have a pee wee AA team.

Trust me..The kids will be just fine if they don't get moved back and forth. Many D-1 players once played on B teams. Be patient is my advice. But back to the first post on this topic. The real question becomes what should an association due when a kid leaves and goes to play at MN Made for a year. I think the association should welcome him back with open arms. Now should he be penalized for leaving and coming back? Fair question. But I do think all of us who know kids who have been part of 2 or more associations and they haven't moved houses once. This is where I think associations can take a little harder stance and try to limit this a little

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I think there is always extreme cases where it may make sense to waiver out...But okay I will play along. Let's say they don't have an A team...I say just play with his buddies on the B team. What harm will that do? Because if the parent is moving the kid out because lets say they don't have a squirt A team then comes back for pee wee's chances are the parent will not be upset the association doesn't have a pee wee AA team.

Trust me..The kids will be just fine if they don't get moved back and forth. Many D-1 players once played on B teams. Be patient is my advice. But back to the first post on this topic. The real question becomes what should an association due when a kid leaves and goes to play at MN Made for a year. I think the association should welcome him back with open arms. Now should he be penalized for leaving and coming back? Fair question. But I do think all of us who know kids who have been part of 2 or more associations and they haven't moved houses once. This is where I think associations can take a little harder stance and try to limit this a little

Trust you? I think your comments above along with calls for punishment of a 9 year old, does the opposite of garnering trust in your opinion.

I think InigoMontoya's post was perfect (and very passive aggressive I might add).

YIPH, you should maybe think about going back to playing and refrain from commenting on youth hockey.

How am I "punishing" a 9 year old? (this I can't wait to hear)

yesiplayedhockey wrote:How am I "punishing" a 9 year old? (this I can't wait to hear)

Hmmm, is this HRC?

if you leave our association for one year and come back we will welcome you with open arms. But for that first year that you come back, you will play down one level.


An association board should be run by mature adults who do not hold grudges or punish kids for choosing other options, whether it be playing elsewhere, choosing another sport or just deciding not to play. Set the association up to provide the most and best opportunities possible for the families that do sign up, whether they played the year before or not, and then make decision based on what is best for the players that have signed up. Pretty simple.

How is this "punishing" a nine year old... I guess my definition of "punishing" and yours might be slightly different...and by the way I'm not on any board...Listen I have no axe to grind.... I just wish parents would stop moving their kids in and out, back and forth.

Imagine how messed our High School program would be if they allowed little Jimmy to play for Edina as a sophomore, BSM as a Junior and Stillwater as a senior

yesiplayedhockey wrote:How is this "punishing" a nine year old... I guess my definition of "punishing" and yours might be slightly different...and by the way I'm not on any board...Listen I have no axe to grind.... I just wish parents would stop moving their kids in and out, back and forth.

Imagine how messed our High School program would be if they allowed little Jimmy to play for Edina as a sophomore, BSM as a Junior and Stillwater as a senior

If you have to ask, then I will stipulate, our definition of punishment is different. I am ok with agreeing to disagree.

They actually can kick you out of the Association. What happens after that is up to the District Director. But I can't imagine any DD wouldn't allow a kid to go play somewhere else. Would probably be better than being punished in the home Association.[/quote]

Are you positive? When D6 implemented that exact rule a number of years back, and Bernie challenged it in court, didn't the court rule in favor of Bernie? I believe the court indicated the rule was a violation of a couple free market competition laws and in turn D6 revoked it's rule - ie punishment?

Pretty sure when this all went down, DD's sent a memo to association boards, indicating they could not punish a youth player in any way for participating in a program outside Minnesota/USA hockey.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:They actually can kick you out of the Association. What happens after that is up to the District Director. But I can't imagine any DD wouldn't allow a kid to go play somewhere else. Would probably be better than being punished in the home Association.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:Are you positive? When D6 implemented that exact rule a number of years back, and Bernie challenged it in court, didn't the court rule in favor of Bernie? I believe the court indicated the rule was a violation of a couple free market competition laws and in turn D6 revoked it's rule - ie punishment?

Pretty sure when this all went down, DD's sent a memo to association boards, indicating they could not punish a youth player in any way for participating in a program outside Minnesota/USA hockey.

I'm just going by Elliott's response above. He said that if the Association Board does not want him, thus allowing a waiver, the player could move on. That indicates to me that they can kick him out if they choose but I'm sure Elliott can confirm or deny. I would like to think it would never happen, but referencing your post above, unfortunately, not all Association boards are filled with mature Adults who don't hold grudges and/or punish kids.

Jeffy95 wrote:

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:They actually can kick you out of the Association. What happens after that is up to the District Director. But I can't imagine any DD wouldn't allow a kid to go play somewhere else. Would probably be better than being punished in the home Association.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:Are you positive? When D6 implemented that exact rule a number of years back, and Bernie challenged it in court, didn't the court rule in favor of Bernie? I believe the court indicated the rule was a violation of a couple free market competition laws and in turn D6 revoked it's rule - ie punishment?

Pretty sure when this all went down, DD's sent a memo to association boards, indicating they could not punish a youth player in any way for participating in a program outside Minnesota/USA hockey.

I'm just going by Elliott's response above. He said that if the Association Board does not want him, thus allowing a waiver, the player could move on. That indicates to me that they can kick him out if they choose but I'm sure Elliott can confirm or deny. I would like to think it would never happen, but referencing your post above, unfortunately, not all Association boards are filled with mature Adults who don't hold grudges and/or punish kids.

No, they cannot kick a player out. If they do not want him then the player would be allowed to waiver if he felt the association would not treat him correctly.

There's being kicked out and being kicked out.
If the kid was not given a fair chance in D16 there is a strong likelihood there may be a new board for the local association. We don't have that in D16 because people know I can be an ass. But things are different up here in southern Manitoba.

elliott70 wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:They actually can kick you out of the Association. What happens after that is up to the District Director. But I can't imagine any DD wouldn't allow a kid to go play somewhere else. Would probably be better than being punished in the home Association.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:Are you positive? When D6 implemented that exact rule a number of years back, and Bernie challenged it in court, didn't the court rule in favor of Bernie? I believe the court indicated the rule was a violation of a couple free market competition laws and in turn D6 revoked it's rule - ie punishment?

Pretty sure when this all went down, DD's sent a memo to association boards, indicating they could not punish a youth player in any way for participating in a program outside Minnesota/USA hockey.

I'm just going by Elliott's response above. He said that if the Association Board does not want him, thus allowing a waiver, the player could move on. That indicates to me that they can kick him out if they choose but I'm sure Elliott can confirm or deny. I would like to think it would never happen, but referencing your post above, unfortunately, not all Association boards are filled with mature Adults who don't hold grudges and/or punish kids.

No, they cannot kick a player out. If they do not want him then the player would be allowed to waiver if he felt the association would not treat him correctly.

There's being kicked out and being kicked out.
If the kid was not given a fair chance in D16 there is a strong likelihood there may be a new board for the local association. We don't have that in D16 because people know I can be an ass. But things are different up here in southern Manitoba.

Great information, thanks Elliott.

Along the same lines as this, as well as the Eligibility post, what are thoughts on this "player departure rule" and what it says about the desire to develop hockey players (this is a fairly large association with 5-7 teams at each age level above mites, so the difference between top team players and the C teams should be very large):

[i]"If, upon completion of the tryout process and assignment to a team, the participant elects to withdraw from [Association] and not participate with their assigned team during the upcoming season, they will be found in violation of the tryout process. Those found to be in violation of the tryout process will be deemed ineligible for the following season’s tryout process. Players who are ineligible for tryouts, or do not tryout, will be placed on a C team.... The Departure Policy is not intended to be punitive for withdrawing from, and returning to, [the Association]. Rather, it is intended to give families pause and dissuade the player from opting to leave the Association, due to unsatisfactory placement from the tryout process."[/i]

Who does this rule possibly benefit and what does it do for youth hockey? If this is a C player that just quits hockey or bubble B/C player then it's maybe not a big deal, but if its a peewee or bantam that's in the top half in a world that has a range from AA to C....

lostmyonlypuckindasnow wrote:Along the same lines as this, as well as the Eligibility post, what are thoughts on this "player departure rule" and what it says about the desire to develop hockey players (this is a fairly large association with 5-7 teams at each age level above mites, so the difference between top team players and the C teams should be very large):

"If, upon completion of the tryout process and assignment to a team, the participant elects to withdraw from [Association] and not participate with their assigned team during the upcoming season, they will be found in violation of the tryout process. Those found to be in violation of the tryout process will be deemed ineligible for the following season’s tryout process. Players who are ineligible for tryouts, or do not tryout, will be placed on a C team.... The Departure Policy is not intended to be punitive for withdrawing from, and returning to, [the Association]. Rather, it is intended to give families pause and dissuade the player from opting to leave the Association, due to unsatisfactory placement from the tryout process."

Who does this rule possibly benefit and what does it do for youth hockey? If this is a C player that just quits hockey or bubble B/C player then it's maybe not a big deal, but if its a peewee or bantam that's in the top half in a world that has a range from AA to C....

That's a ridiculous rule, and I highly doubt that it would fly with MN Hockey. I would send that to your District Director.