District 6 New Rule involving playing hockey only with Dist

[oholene]

http://www.d6hockey.net/

"New Rules - Leagues
District 6 recognizes that participation on a District 6 youth hockey team is a time intensive and competitive activity and, in the spirit of advancing the overall best interests of both its youth participants and the District 6 teams, has determined as follows:


A player registered with a District 6 member association may not register or play hockey with any other organization, association or team during the winter hockey season, including playoffs. If a player is found to be registered or playing with another team, the District Director will determine, in their sole discretion, what sanction shall be assessed which may include, without limitation, suspension for the remainder of the District 6 winter hockey season, including playoffs."

I am interested in your thoughts regarding this.

Will District 6 waiver kids out if they don't agree with the rule?
Legality of non-profit imposing rule?
MN Hockey's opinion of this?
USA Hockey's opinion of this?
Any District 6 association's opinion of this?

How about some clarity? What does it mean to register or play hockey with any other organization?

Can a kid do stick handling with Pitlick or Breakfast Club?
Can a kid do any choice league or the new Blades development program?
Can my kid do Bjustad's for shooting?
Can my kid attend a hockey game outside of District 6?
Can my kid watch hockey on TV?
Can my kid go to school or is that too time intensive for a District 6 hockey participant?

[council member retired]

http://www.d6hockey.net/

"New Rules - Leagues
District 6 recognizes that participation on a District 6 youth hockey team is a time intensive and competitive activity and, in the spirit of advancing the overall best interests of both its youth participants and the District 6 teams, has determined as follows:


A player registered with a District 6 member association may not register or play hockey with any other organization, association or team during the winter hockey season, including playoffs. If a player is found to be registered or playing with another team, the District Director will determine, in their sole discretion, what sanction shall be assessed which may include, without limitation, suspension for the remainder of the District 6 winter hockey season, including playoffs."

I am interested in your thoughts regarding this.

Will District 6 waiver kids out if they don't agree with the rule?
Legality of non-profit imposing rule?
MN Hockey's opinion of this?
USA Hockey's opinion of this?
Any District 6 association's opinion of this?

How about some clarity? What does it mean to register or play hockey with any other organization?

Can a kid do stick handling with Pitlick or Breakfast Club?
Can a kid do any choice league or the new Blades development program?
Can my kid do Bjustad's for shooting?
Can my kid attend a hockey game outside of District 6?
Can my kid watch hockey on TV?
Can my kid go to school or is that too time intensive for a District 6 hockey participant?

Instead of assisting their own associations to become better, D6 is trying to strong arm the other alternatives to youth hockey. Shame on you D6. Teach your own associations how to enhance their youth programs that you feel suffer from these venues. Your not a monopoly, competition is good for the consumer.

[Lily Braden]

I question the "registration" portion of this rule. What if my kids want to play spring hockey and don't make the team because they didn't register in time?

Actually, strike that...I question all of this.

I am extremely interested in how D6 plans on enforcing this rule. I can't imagine that they would go after the best players on the teams...the coaches and parents would go insane. Maybe they'll pick some middle-of-the-pack players and make "examples" of them. Which would stink as well.

This rule looks like a potential nightmare IMHO...both practically and legally.

All that being said, really, how big of a problem is this? Or is D6 worried about the future?

[council member retired]

I question the "registration" portion of this rule. What if my kids want to play spring hockey and don't make the team because they didn't register in time?

Actually, strike that...I question all of this.

I am extremely interested in how D6 plans on enforcing this rule. I can't imagine that they would go after the best players on the teams...the coaches and parents would go insane. Maybe they'll pick some middle-of-the-pack players and make "examples" of them. Which would stink as well.

This rule looks like a potential nightmare IMHO...both practically and legally.

All that being said, really, how big of a problem is this? Or is D6 worried about the future?

Do they fear that mite hockey ( pre squirt ) will be instructed by programs not associated with Minnesota and district affiliate assocation?

[Puck Hog]

WOW!........un X!ZEIRS!! believable!

[Juggernaut]

This D6's lame attempt to control what,when and who plays hockey in their geographic area. I can see it already rival coaches hanging out in the lobby at MM or Hat Trick. This will be impossible to enforce....the only winners will be the lawyers

[Task Force 34]

D6 is making it easy for people - If they have only one option (especially at the mite level) they will go to the MM Choice program or the Blades new program and tell their associations goodbye.

D6 obviously does not understand the catalyst for these programs starting up in the first place. Kids and parents are looking for and willing to pay for more ice time and competent instruction.

Maybe the District Director is evaluated on enrollment numbers??

[mnhcp]

D6 is making it easy for people - If they have only one option (especially at the mite level) they will go to the MM Choice program or the Blades new program and tell their associations goodbye.

D6 obviously does not understand the catalyst for these programs starting up in the first place. Kids and parents are looking for and willing to pay for more ice time and competent instruction.

Maybe the District Director is evaluated on enrollment numbers??

BRILLIANT

[hockeydad]

Questionable decision... But someone questioned the legality of it...

district 6, and Minnesota hockey, is a voluntary organization, so as far as I know, they can impose whatever rules they wish on their members. No one is forcing them to join.

[InigoMontoya]

Your not a monopoly,

Sure they are. MNH grants them the franchise rights, which they then pass down to the associations. It's "my way or the highway" for associations, and currently there is no highway option. Though there is a slowly building network of dirt roads that offer options to individuals.

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next 5-10 years; how well will the back roads be travelled, when will the highway be built, can "my way" and "the highway" exist in parallel? The pressing issue for MNH is that the first group that will traverse the road not taken will be the most talented. If MNH is proactive, they could create a paradigm shift from the current layout; if they wait to react, MNH could be a rec league, while the hockey players migrate toward the monolith.

[SWPrez]

Questionable decision... But someone questioned the legality of it...

district 6, and Minnesota hockey, is a voluntary organization, so as far as I know, they can impose whatever rules they wish on their members. No one is forcing them to join.

I disagree hockeydad. There is way too much gray area involved to make this enforceable.

Individual coaches or associations could lay down rules that require a commitment to the team and the program first - and they should as hockey is a game that requires heavy commitment and family support. A kid playing an alternative or supplemental program is a secondary commitment and should not be allowed to take priority over the primary commitment. This depends on the level of play A vs C level hockey, but coaches and associations can enforce team policies and are better suited for this than a District wide policy.

However, if a kid wants to be on a ski team, basketball team, swim team....etc. as a secondary sport commitment, I do not see a difference between supplemental hockey or playing one of these other sports.

Further, who is going to decide what is legitimate or not? If an Edina kid wants to play Minneapolis Park Board hockey or Xcel League with some school friends is the District going to suspend that player? If no, why would you suspend or restrict for going to MM or Blades for supplemental hockey or Choice? Are you going to enforce for "A" players but let "C" players slide on this rule? If a family wants to play association....and Choice, what is the problem as long as the association or coach has declared that commitment to the association team is primary. I just do not see this as a District issue, but rather a hockey policy of individual associations or even teams within the association.

Its clear that this issue is a big issue in D6, or they wouldn't have put this through. My suggestion to District 6 is this: Hire someone to develop an in-season supplemental program for kids that want extra ice. Ask each of the district members to provide a certain amount of prime ice to accomplish a quality program. Have kids from all programs attend if they want to supplement their hockey. Create a competitive product rather than trying to defend against something that you cannot control.

[Starbuckmom]

It does stipulate that **This rule does not impact any hockey clinics or outside activities including but not limited to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Religious events, birthday parties, etc. This rule strictly applies to league play.** So as far as clinics go I believe you can do whatever you would like.
In the past few seasons it has been allowed for a kid to play both at MM or AAA and association hockey as long as the association hockey was the primary commitment, this was the agreement with D6. D6 associations have taken a look at their numbers dwindling, the conflicts that have come up between the non-association and association commitment level and have obviously decided that it was time to put in place a way to try and protect the association's.
You also have to keep in mind that most associations typically require that their players are registered with USA Hockey, MM is not USA Hockey accredited. Where this becomes an issue is with the insurance which comes with USA Hockey - it's a lawsuit waiting to happen if a kid is injured playing in a MM league and a parent tries to use the insurance from USA Hockey to cover the injury...
One can only hope that this will push the D6 associations to take a good hard look at their programs to determine where they are lacking and what the families that do both are looking for at the non-association program and use this to strengthen their programs.

[royals dad]

=
One can only hope that this will push the D6 associations to take a good hard look at their programs to determine where they are lacking and what the families that do both are looking for at the non-association program and use this to strengthen their programs.

What about parents like me, I'm happy with the amount of ice we get and don't want to be forced into more because my district wants to compete with MM like programs. The way it is today parents who want their kids to have more structured ice can join one of these programs and I can take my kids to the park on our off nights. I think last year my termite had about as many times outdoors as he did indoors. Last couple years have been great for outdoor ice. All I had to pay for was the extra sharpenings. If the star kids on his mite team this year stop showing up and choose to go to the other team more it will be a bummer but I don't want their schedule heaped on us to prevent it.

[old goalie85]

RD--- great point let them do what they want . I'll take my kids to the out door rink for free!!!

[HockeyDad41]

I wonder which Squirt or Pee Wee A coach will be the first to get caught allowing kids on their team to play both.

[HockeyMom87]

OK hockey fanatics. I'm a hockey Mom because my kids love hockey. I was never a hockey fanatic before this. I do have to say, however, that I am appalled by the District 6 Rule. Here are some issues it raises:

1. I refer to it as the "Abusive Husband Rule." I'm sure it was drafted by a man. Why is it that men think they can strong-arm people to stay with them? Women leave men because they are bad husbands. Kids leave hockey associations because they are inferior. Women are killed every day because their partner would rather see them dead than with another man. Apparently - because the district director - "in HIS sole discretion" can suspend a kid for the rest of the season if he or she is in another league. REALLY? I want to know if any women had input into this.
2. I am just as focused on my childrens' education as I am their hockey endeavors. I am appalled that some of the people writing on these boards cannot spell. Perhaps you should spend more time helping your children with their homework instead of coming up with crazy rules.
3. Who wrote the rule? Who voted on the rule?
4. When the district gets sued, who is paying for the lawyers? Did the drafters educate their members of district 6 beforehand? Did the members of district 6 have information about this? Was it done behind the scenes?
5. It seems to me this rule hurts only the good players. Most alternative leagues have try outs. If you are an average player, you really wouldn't make some of these other league try-outs. Thus, it will disproportionately be applied to the better players. This means, in the end, the district loses its best players if it is actually enforced.
6. Is the director trying to SCARE people into staying in district 6? Who is this MAN? I assume he is single because no smart woman would have anything to do with such a control freak.
7. What happens when the district is sued. Will the lawyers pierce the corporate veil with actions outside the scope of the director's authority? I hope so - then the director can be held personally liable for all attorney fees and costs - easily in the 6 digits!
8. What are they really trying to accomplish? Hand cuffs it looks like. Yippy - instead of trying to find a way to keep good players and improve associations - they punish those that want more. Great - let us have a district where kids can rise to the top level of mediocrity!
9. What if there is a church league? Doesn't this punish those for practicing their religion? Hmmmmm - violation of constitutional rights.
10. This also hurts boys more than girls so it discriminates on gender in practice. I have yet to see an association that gives the girls an equal shake despite Title VII. (And I have a boy and girl so I have seen both).
11. Where are checks and balances? The director has sole authority over violations. No where in our society do we give this kind of authority. What if the director suffers from mental health problems? Will it be a position requirement that all directors submit to MMPIs prior to taking the post? What if they are a drug abuser - will there be a rule that no consumption of drugs and alcohol during their post? Will they be subject to random UIs? What if they are a sex offender or a pedophile? What if they are a wife beater? Sounds expensive to really enforce the way it should be to ensure appropriate person is in the position.
12. What if there are disparities in enforcement? How is overseen? What are the ramifications to violations on the director's part?

There are a lot of questions that aren't addressed. It sounds like someone made a rule without thinking things through. That is usually the actions of very immature or unintelligent people. I'm glad I am not in District 6. Not only would my association be subject to heavy legal fees but I would fear the leadership consists of cavemen. NICE! Good luck district 6.

[jackdaw]

My guess is that most of the people who oppose the D6 ruling are parents with first time kids in Mites or Squirts. D6 is just saying pick one or the other. If a kid is enrolled in both an Assoc. and MM, they will be skating "8 days a week", parents don't get it. There will no doubt be scheduling conflicts between the two for games and practices. Usually with MM you will have to go to their ice or you will be put on the black list at MM and will not be given a shot to play for the Machine or other MM type team when your kid becomes a Superstar after 125 hrs of ice for the year between the two teams. Now its game day at your Assoc and you have to miss the game and penalize the other kids because you have to go to MM-remember your kid is a Superstar in the making.


MM is in the business of selling the dream to parents-especially the parents with oldest kid at Mites and Squirts and are good players. The reality is that MM has a lot of ice to sell and creating these 100 hrs replacement leagues is a great way to do it. By requiring a player to attend all sessions at MM, MM is making sure that the teams attendance does not fall apart at about hr 80, when most of the kids are not that into going to the arena and would like to do something other than go to the rink for the 100th day in a row.

I like the D6 ruling, pick one but not two and your kid will most likely want to play hockey next year instead of getting burnt out in one year. It’s like a law that requires parents to buckle in a kid in the car: the smart parents already know it’s the right thing to do, but the others parents have to have a rule to protect their kid!

[HockeyMom87]

Jackdaw: You missed the point - the point is the appropriateness of the district passing the rule and attempting to control what people do in their private time. You can have whatever opinions you want - and that is great! But -your response failed to comment on whether they legally can pass this rule and the problems and appropriateness of implementing it. Moreover, your specifically refer to MM - which the rule does not. That confirms my suspicion that the rule is to single out MM. If that is their intention - why not just say it? Because they can't and the rule would be seen for what it is - an attempt to stop kids from going to MM. And for the record - I do not have a first time Mite or Squirt.

You comments are valid as far as a family having to determine what amount their child skates and what their child can handle. That being said - you are factually erroneous. MM programs operating during the regular hockey season do not require their skaters to never miss. I have seen kids miss for tests, family vacations, etc. and not have negative implications. The same cannot be said for the associations. When one of my children skated in the association - they had practice until 10:30 which meant they wouldn't be to bed until after 11:00 p.m. They had a test the next day and I was told if they missed, they would be benched one period of the next game. So - factually, MM is much more supportive of family life and school. Furthermore, in our association, the Squirt A boys skated almost every single day in January and February last year. They were skating 5-6 days each week and also had tournaments. The Squirt Choice League at MM did not do that.

If there are conflicts, the family will have choices to make. This is not uncommon. Many families already make choices between football and hockey, baseball and hockey, basketball and hockey, swimming and hockey, dance and hockey, etc. If you have an athletic child - you will make choices. I can state that we have had to make choices between two sports on several occasions and that is how it goes. My children ski and play hockey - does the rule prevent them from participating in ski leagues? It is very poorly written and will require a great deal of time and money to rule on each particular case. Apparently, the director has now been advised not to discuss the rule (posted on July meeting minutes) by lawyers. If a parent had a question of how it would apply to their particular situation, they cannot even get an answer.

Each child is different. Some kids can handle skating every day and some cannot. In my family, one of my kids can do it and the other cannot. To penalize the one that can, and loves to, just because it isn't for everyone is wrong. It is inappropriate to substitute a league's judgment for that of the parent. Our country as a whole - in many areas - has protected parents' rights to make choices about their children. We may not agree - but it isn't up for others to substitute their judgment.

This topic goes beyond hockey and applies to many things: breastfeeding; using pacifiers; allowing cell phones; having sleepovers; allowing them to ride motorcycles, contact with grandparent, etc. There may be many things that other parents do that I find repulsive - but it isn't any of my business and it isn't up to others to make rules about them. The state government does not even attempt to delve into these areas. I find your comment about using seat belts unpersuasive. Seat belt laws apply to every child, including adults. Hockey is a recreational activity. It is not up for others to police people and impose their views. The "fact" upon which your conclusion is reached - that your child will be burnt out after one year - is also erroneous. Talk to some parents who have done it. As I said - each child is different and your "conclusion" does not account for that fact.

Additionally, the rule goes beyond picking one or two hockey leagues. It applies, technically, to all leagues and could apply to off-season leagues that start up in the spring while the regular season is winding up. You failed to address that.

I am not in D6 so it does not apply to my family. That being said, I care about the rule because it could be passed in my district and impact my family - or some new rule could be passed that is similar. My concern is that the district could be sued and who is paying for this? According to the minutes from the State Hockey League, they have in excess of $1 million on the books. This should be used for hockey - not to pay lawyers to defend an arrogant and controlling district director. Alternatively, the parents that want the rule should fork over the funds to pay for the defense of the rule. These are funds from families - many of whom make a huge financial sacrifice for their child to play hockey. I'm guessing if a few parents had to start personally paying the legal fees, your opinion would change.

I am also offended at how the rule is enforced. The director is the only person who gets to make a decision as to what the punishment is - and it could include suspension for the season. Are you kidding me? This is just inviting abuse. Power without checks on it always is abused. There is no oversight, no limits, and no way to review the decisions. What if the director is biased against a particular child? What if the director is just plain crazy? How are we going to pick directors from here on out that have this type of power? How much is that going to cost? Who will pay for it?

I am aware of no other sport that has rules such as this. Do the hockey gods really think they are that special?

Lastly, your statement that MM is in the business of selling dreams to kids seems to be negative. What is wrong with kids having dreams? When you are young - you should dream. When kids state they want to be the president or an astronaut (things that are very unlikely) we do not shoot them down. We tell them that is great. We encourage them. Hockey is no different. All kids should have dreams. Unfortunately, the associations and how they are run and the people running them aren't very good at supporting kids' dreams.

In closing, I have yet to see a position that is well-reasoned and factually supported which supports this rule.

[Quasar]

Jackdaw: You missed the point - the point is the appropriateness of the district passing the rule and attempting to control what people do in their private time. You can have whatever opinions you want - and that is great! But -your response failed to comment on whether they legally can pass this rule and the problems and appropriateness of implementing it. Moreover, your specifically refer to MM - which the rule does not. That confirms my suspicion that the rule is to single out MM. If that is their intention - why not just say it? Because they can't and the rule would be seen for what it is - an attempt to stop kids from going to MM. And for the record - I do not have a first time Mite or Squirt.

You comments are valid as far as a family having to determine what amount their child skates and what their child can handle. That being said - you are factually erroneous. MM programs operating during the regular hockey season do not require their skaters to never miss. I have seen kids miss for tests, family vacations, etc. and not have negative implications. The same cannot be said for the associations. When one of my children skated in the association - they had practice until 10:30 which meant they wouldn't be to bed until after 11:00 p.m. They had a test the next day and I was told if they missed, they would be benched one period of the next game. So - factually, MM is much more supportive of family life and school. Furthermore, in our association, the Squirt A boys skated almost every single day in January and February last year. They were skating 5-6 days each week and also had tournaments. The Squirt Choice League at MM did not do that.

If there are conflicts, the family will have choices to make. This is not uncommon. Many families already make choices between football and hockey, baseball and hockey, basketball and hockey, swimming and hockey, dance and hockey, etc. If you have an athletic child - you will make choices. I can state that we have had to make choices between two sports on several occasions and that is how it goes. My children ski and play hockey - does the rule prevent them from participating in ski leagues? It is very poorly written and will require a great deal of time and money to rule on each particular case. Apparently, the director has now been advised not to discuss the rule (posted on July meeting minutes) by lawyers. If a parent had a question of how it would apply to their particular situation, they cannot even get an answer.

Each child is different. Some kids can handle skating every day and some cannot. In my family, one of my kids can do it and the other cannot. To penalize the one that can, and loves to, just because it isn't for everyone is wrong. It is inappropriate to substitute a league's judgment for that of the parent. Our country as a whole - in many areas - has protected parents' rights to make choices about their children. We may not agree - but it isn't up for others to substitute their judgment.

This topic goes beyond hockey and applies to many things: breastfeeding; using pacifiers; allowing cell phones; having sleepovers; allowing them to ride motorcycles, contact with grandparent, etc. There may be many things that other parents do that I find repulsive - but it isn't any of my business and it isn't up to others to make rules about them. The state government does not even attempt to delve into these areas. I find your comment about using seat belts unpersuasive. Seat belt laws apply to every child, including adults. Hockey is a recreational activity. It is not up for others to police people and impose their views. The "fact" upon which your conclusion is reached - that your child will be burnt out after one year - is also erroneous. Talk to some parents who have done it. As I said - each child is different and your "conclusion" does not account for that fact.

Additionally, the rule goes beyond picking one or two hockey leagues. It applies, technically, to all leagues and could apply to off-season leagues that start up in the spring while the regular season is winding up. You failed to address that.

I am not in D6 so it does not apply to my family. That being said, I care about the rule because it could be passed in my district and impact my family - or some new rule could be passed that is similar. My concern is that the district could be sued and who is paying for this? According to the minutes from the State Hockey League, they have in excess of $1 million on the books. This should be used for hockey - not to pay lawyers to defend an arrogant and controlling district director. Alternatively, the parents that want the rule should fork over the funds to pay for the defense of the rule. These are funds from families - many of whom make a huge financial sacrifice for their child to play hockey. I'm guessing if a few parents had to start personally paying the legal fees, your opinion would change.

I am also offended at how the rule is enforced. The director is the only person who gets to make a decision as to what the punishment is - and it could include suspension for the season. Are you kidding me? This is just inviting abuse. Power without checks on it always is abused. There is no oversight, no limits, and no way to review the decisions. What if the director is biased against a particular child? What if the director is just plain crazy? How are we going to pick directors from here on out that have this type of power? How much is that going to cost? Who will pay for it?

I am aware of no other sport that has rules such as this. Do the hockey gods really think they are that special?

Lastly, your statement that MM is in the business of selling dreams to kids seems to be negative. What is wrong with kids having dreams? When you are young - you should dream. When kids state they want to be the president or an astronaut (things that are very unlikely) we do not shoot them down. We tell them that is great. We encourage them. Hockey is no different. All kids should have dreams. Unfortunately, the associations and how they are run and the people running them aren't very good at supporting kids' dreams.

In closing, I have yet to see a position that is well-reasoned and factually supported which supports this rule.

A perfect synopsis.
Thank you ...

[HockeyDad41]

Usually with MM you will have to go to their ice or you will be put on the black list at MM and will not be given a shot to play for the Machine or other MM type team when your kid becomes a Superstar after 125 hrs of ice for the year between the two teams.

These types of quotes are my favorite.

[MrBoDangles]

Jackdaw: You missed the point - the point is the appropriateness of the district passing the rule and attempting to control what people do in their private time. You can have whatever opinions you want - and that is great! But -your response failed to comment on whether they legally can pass this rule and the problems and appropriateness of implementing it. Moreover, your specifically refer to MM - which the rule does not. That confirms my suspicion that the rule is to single out MM. If that is their intention - why not just say it? Because they can't and the rule would be seen for what it is - an attempt to stop kids from going to MM. And for the record - I do not have a first time Mite or Squirt.

You comments are valid as far as a family having to determine what amount their child skates and what their child can handle. That being said - you are factually erroneous. MM programs operating during the regular hockey season do not require their skaters to never miss. I have seen kids miss for tests, family vacations, etc. and not have negative implications. The same cannot be said for the associations. When one of my children skated in the association - they had practice until 10:30 which meant they wouldn't be to bed until after 11:00 p.m. They had a test the next day and I was told if they missed, they would be benched one period of the next game. So - factually, MM is much more supportive of family life and school. Furthermore, in our association, the Squirt A boys skated almost every single day in January and February last year. They were skating 5-6 days each week and also had tournaments. The Squirt Choice League at MM did not do that.

If there are conflicts, the family will have choices to make. This is not uncommon. Many families already make choices between football and hockey, baseball and hockey, basketball and hockey, swimming and hockey, dance and hockey, etc. If you have an athletic child - you will make choices. I can state that we have had to make choices between two sports on several occasions and that is how it goes. My children ski and play hockey - does the rule prevent them from participating in ski leagues? It is very poorly written and will require a great deal of time and money to rule on each particular case. Apparently, the director has now been advised not to discuss the rule (posted on July meeting minutes) by lawyers. If a parent had a question of how it would apply to their particular situation, they cannot even get an answer.

Each child is different. Some kids can handle skating every day and some cannot. In my family, one of my kids can do it and the other cannot. To penalize the one that can, and loves to, just because it isn't for everyone is wrong. It is inappropriate to substitute a league's judgment for that of the parent. Our country as a whole - in many areas - has protected parents' rights to make choices about their children. We may not agree - but it isn't up for others to substitute their judgment.

This topic goes beyond hockey and applies to many things: breastfeeding; using pacifiers; allowing cell phones; having sleepovers; allowing them to ride motorcycles, contact with grandparent, etc. There may be many things that other parents do that I find repulsive - but it isn't any of my business and it isn't up to others to make rules about them. The state government does not even attempt to delve into these areas. I find your comment about using seat belts unpersuasive. Seat belt laws apply to every child, including adults. Hockey is a recreational activity. It is not up for others to police people and impose their views. The "fact" upon which your conclusion is reached - that your child will be burnt out after one year - is also erroneous. Talk to some parents who have done it. As I said - each child is different and your "conclusion" does not account for that fact.

Additionally, the rule goes beyond picking one or two hockey leagues. It applies, technically, to all leagues and could apply to off-season leagues that start up in the spring while the regular season is winding up. You failed to address that.

I am not in D6 so it does not apply to my family. That being said, I care about the rule because it could be passed in my district and impact my family - or some new rule could be passed that is similar. My concern is that the district could be sued and who is paying for this? According to the minutes from the State Hockey League, they have in excess of $1 million on the books. This should be used for hockey - not to pay lawyers to defend an arrogant and controlling district director. Alternatively, the parents that want the rule should fork over the funds to pay for the defense of the rule. These are funds from families - many of whom make a huge financial sacrifice for their child to play hockey. I'm guessing if a few parents had to start personally paying the legal fees, your opinion would change.

I am also offended at how the rule is enforced. The director is the only person who gets to make a decision as to what the punishment is - and it could include suspension for the season. Are you kidding me? This is just inviting abuse. Power without checks on it always is abused. There is no oversight, no limits, and no way to review the decisions. What if the director is biased against a particular child? What if the director is just plain crazy? How are we going to pick directors from here on out that have this type of power? How much is that going to cost? Who will pay for it?

I am aware of no other sport that has rules such as this. Do the hockey gods really think they are that special?

Lastly, your statement that MM is in the business of selling dreams to kids seems to be negative. What is wrong with kids having dreams? When you are young - you should dream. When kids state they want to be the president or an astronaut (things that are very unlikely) we do not shoot them down. We tell them that is great. We encourage them. Hockey is no different. All kids should have dreams. Unfortunately, the associations and how they are run and the people running them aren't very good at supporting kids' dreams.

In closing, I have yet to see a position that is well-reasoned and factually supported which supports this rule.

Watch what you say in this communist run state of Hockey....

[sorno82]

Watch what you say in this communist run state of Hockey....

The commies developed some of the greatest players ever

[hiptzech]

Watch what you say in this communist run state of Hockey....

The commies developed some of the greatest players ever

Anna Sergeyevna Kournikova (Russian: Анна Сергеевна Ку́рникова; born 7 June 1981)
[/img]

[HockeyMom87]

Yep - we can have our children rise to the top of a pile of mediocrity and be proud!

[TriedThat2]

I think you will see more to come. Rumor has it that a rule exactly like D-6's is being proposed for a statewide ban at the next MN Hockey meeting. Anybody else hear this?