Short Bench

[SECoach]

Knowing if and when, how much, and why to shorten a bench is a bit of an art form. We always have to remember that these are still kids, and even Bantam hockey is not played by men earning a living at it. To say at this level "it's about winning" is shortsighted in my opinion. Doing your best to win or at least compete is clearly always a part of things, but coaches pulling out all the stops to win games that are not meant to be won are where they often get in trouble. Coaches sometimes earn the right to make decisions like these by they way they handle them. The conversations they have with the players. their ability to make a young person feel valuable to the team, even if they called on someone else in a given moment. Although I respect the associations that make this a black and white subject, I also feel it sometimes takes away from the growth opportunities they need to provide their coaches. Parents often make that very difficult. Struggling is something that is a part of life and we need to ensure that our kids become accustomed to it, and develop some skills in that area. We all hate to see our kids struggle, but that's where lots and lots of learning happens. Play em all or try to win, do whatever...but do it with responsibility and respect for the players, who happen to be children.

I can agree on this and when I see it done in this "way" I usually have no problem with it especially at teh Bantam and older levels. However, I see it done' responsibly" about 1 or 2 out of 10 times. It's the other 8 times that cause us to have this conversation. Too many irresponsible coaches who don't know how to handle it properly. Life is a struggle and sports help teach that and no one wants anyone pampered but when you put up thousands of dollars and a kid really is working his tail off and IS doingall the right things and still gets shafted because the coach is not "responsible" that is when we end up with rules against shorting the bench at all, it's coaches who are given an inch but take a mile that are the problem with this subject not the majority of parents in all honesty

I agree that far too many coaches have the wrong objective in mind when they make these decisions, but I will add to that, there are far too may parents competing in their own right, that cloud the waters here. It is very difficult for amateur and often parent coaches to be accepted for making the right decisions in this regard. For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be. Most often these feelings come from their own self interests. Not the teams, or even the individual players. Coaches are often trying to "prove themselves" in an atmosphere where this is a losing cause. Prove yourself to the players. Prove that you care about them, prove that you have their interests placed first. Parents, who sometimes rightfully have the clouded interest of one player in their mind, make it difficult for a coach to push past all the fierce self interest. let alone get past their own.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Not so fast there Froggy, you blew the whistle and the puck is clear in site. How about a definition on who is being short benched. Not saying this is a practice that might benefit some coaches but if you have a record that isn't getting you that trophy why subject the association to the method. Many cases are not based on "working hard" in life's ever mentioned equation but if you have to sit and watch the chosen few with countless minutes on the ice with a losing record, I'd say this helps no one.

He did give a definition, he said, "The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry." If this is indeed the case then I see nothing wrong with it. Remember, he's focusing on Bantam AA here and he points out that at that level it is still about winning. I agree. If all you want to do is have fun and don't care about winning then what's wrong with playing B or C?

You indirectly have proven the point. There is nothing wrong with playing B or C if the program is developing players potential. You can isolate the process of the short bench at the highest level of association hockey but it is wide spread for many different reasons that nor you or I can resolve here. But I will leave you with this, there are few people that would even consider questioning any direction on any AA team for fear of getting the one way ticket to C with no return. They love the short bench.

[old goalie85]

No short benches on Christmas !!!

[JSR]

Knowing if and when, how much, and why to shorten a bench is a bit of an art form. We always have to remember that these are still kids, and even Bantam hockey is not played by men earning a living at it. To say at this level "it's about winning" is shortsighted in my opinion. Doing your best to win or at least compete is clearly always a part of things, but coaches pulling out all the stops to win games that are not meant to be won are where they often get in trouble. Coaches sometimes earn the right to make decisions like these by they way they handle them. The conversations they have with the players. their ability to make a young person feel valuable to the team, even if they called on someone else in a given moment. Although I respect the associations that make this a black and white subject, I also feel it sometimes takes away from the growth opportunities they need to provide their coaches. Parents often make that very difficult. Struggling is something that is a part of life and we need to ensure that our kids become accustomed to it, and develop some skills in that area. We all hate to see our kids struggle, but that's where lots and lots of learning happens. Play em all or try to win, do whatever...but do it with responsibility and respect for the players, who happen to be children.

I can agree on this and when I see it done in this "way" I usually have no problem with it especially at teh Bantam and older levels. However, I see it done' responsibly" about 1 or 2 out of 10 times. It's the other 8 times that cause us to have this conversation. Too many irresponsible coaches who don't know how to handle it properly. Life is a struggle and sports help teach that and no one wants anyone pampered but when you put up thousands of dollars and a kid really is working his tail off and IS doingall the right things and still gets shafted because the coach is not "responsible" that is when we end up with rules against shorting the bench at all, it's coaches who are given an inch but take a mile that are the problem with this subject not the majority of parents in all honesty

I agree that far too many coaches have the wrong objective in mind when they make these decisions, but I will add to that, there are far too may parents competing in their own right, that cloud the waters here. It is very difficult for amateur and often parent coaches to be accepted for making the right decisions in this regard. For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be. Most often these feelings come from their own self interests. Not the teams, or even the individual players. Coaches are often trying to "prove themselves" in an atmosphere where this is a losing cause. Prove yourself to the players. Prove that you care about them, prove that you have their interests placed first. Parents, who sometimes rightfully have the clouded interest of one player in their mind, make it difficult for a coach to push past all the fierce self interest. let alone get past their own.

I have not done an official survey but in my personal experience I don't think the ratio is 1 to 1. In my experience I would say for every 15 skater players there are probably 3 parents who want a short bench, 7 who don't want one at all and another 5 who are completely indifferent and don't care either way.

[SECoach]

I can agree on this and when I see it done in this "way" I usually have no problem with it especially at teh Bantam and older levels. However, I see it done' responsibly" about 1 or 2 out of 10 times. It's the other 8 times that cause us to have this conversation. Too many irresponsible coaches who don't know how to handle it properly. Life is a struggle and sports help teach that and no one wants anyone pampered but when you put up thousands of dollars and a kid really is working his tail off and IS doingall the right things and still gets shafted because the coach is not "responsible" that is when we end up with rules against shorting the bench at all, it's coaches who are given an inch but take a mile that are the problem with this subject not the majority of parents in all honesty

I agree that far too many coaches have the wrong objective in mind when they make these decisions, but I will add to that, there are far too may parents competing in their own right, that cloud the waters here. It is very difficult for amateur and often parent coaches to be accepted for making the right decisions in this regard. For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be. Most often these feelings come from their own self interests. Not the teams, or even the individual players. Coaches are often trying to "prove themselves" in an atmosphere where this is a losing cause. Prove yourself to the players. Prove that you care about them, prove that you have their interests placed first. Parents, who sometimes rightfully have the clouded interest of one player in their mind, make it difficult for a coach to push past all the fierce self interest. let alone get past their own.

I have not done an official survey but in my personal experience I don't think the ratio is 1 to 1. In my experience I would say for every 15 skater players there are probably 3 parents who want a short bench, 7 who don't want one at all and another 5 who are completely indifferent and don't care either way.

You completely missed my point.......sorry.

[JSR]

I agree that far too many coaches have the wrong objective in mind when they make these decisions, but I will add to that, there are far too may parents competing in their own right, that cloud the waters here. It is very difficult for amateur and often parent coaches to be accepted for making the right decisions in this regard. For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be. Most often these feelings come from their own self interests. Not the teams, or even the individual players. Coaches are often trying to "prove themselves" in an atmosphere where this is a losing cause. Prove yourself to the players. Prove that you care about them, prove that you have their interests placed first. Parents, who sometimes rightfully have the clouded interest of one player in their mind, make it difficult for a coach to push past all the fierce self interest. let alone get past their own.

I have not done an official survey but in my personal experience I don't think the ratio is 1 to 1. In my experience I would say for every 15 skater players there are probably 3 parents who want a short bench, 7 who don't want one at all and another 5 who are completely indifferent and don't care either way.

You completely missed my point.......sorry.

No I didn't miss your point at all. If I read correctly you were talking about parent coaches and how they get treated to a different standard than non-parent coaches in regards to a shortened bench and how they can be in a no win situation in regards to shorting a bench and I did not disagree with that so I felt no need to comment further, but you also mixed in the view of parents the way you worded it and you said "For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be..", I disagreed with that statement because that statement makes it appear that it is a 50/50 proposition and I don't think it is, I think it's closer to 70/30. I still think at the end of the day if you do not short the bench at all the very rare parent who complains about that has no real argument if the coaches reply is "I am trying to develop everyone so that everyone can be competent in high school when it comes time to short a bench, as opposed to coaches who do short the bench and parents want to know why and the only actual answer is "we wanted to win", that falls bit flat when IMHO team sports for kids are a marathon not a sprint.........

[bestpopcorn]

Another twist. In our small assn we are often faced with the choosing between one team or two, A or B.

I am a fan of two small teams, short bench solved.

[SECoach]

I have not done an official survey but in my personal experience I don't think the ratio is 1 to 1. In my experience I would say for every 15 skater players there are probably 3 parents who want a short bench, 7 who don't want one at all and another 5 who are completely indifferent and don't care either way.

You completely missed my point.......sorry.

No I didn't miss your point at all. If I read correctly you were talking about parent coaches and how they get treated to a different standard than non-parent coaches in regards to a shortened bench and how they can be in a no win situation in regards to shorting a bench and I did not disagree with that so I felt no need to comment further, but you also mixed in the view of parents the way you worded it and you said "For every parent that thinks the bench should not be shortened, there is one that thinks it should be..", I disagreed with that statement because that statement makes it appear that it is a 50/50 proposition and I don't think it is, I think it's closer to 70/30. I still think at the end of the day if you do not short the bench at all the very rare parent who complains about that has no real argument if the coaches reply is "I am trying to develop everyone so that everyone can be competent in high school when it comes time to short a bench, as opposed to coaches who do short the bench and parents want to know why and the only actual answer is "we wanted to win", that falls bit flat when IMHO team sports for kids are a marathon not a sprint.........

Yes, you missed my point. I'll make it more concise. Rarely will people, fans, parents, associations, players agree on whether or when to short the bench. Coaches need to use their good conscience and not their ego, which is influenced by all the above groups, when making these decisions.

[puckbreath]

"Benches ? We don't need no stinking benches !"

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

If there was an emoticon of yawn it would be
Here

[black sheep]

if your coach shortens the bench and you win do all of the players celebrate?

is shortening the bench a parent or a player issue?

[Ugottobekiddingme]

if your coach shortens the bench and you win do all of the players celebrate?

is shortening the bench a parent or a player issue?

This was a two "tier" question that wouldn't be accepted under MH guidelines but here goes:

1. Yes, but would the short bench players also celebrate a loss to prove a point?

2. Not a parent or player issue because they didn't place the teams, maybe if your association has purely coach pick or following the mirage of evaluator placement, issues could be addressed here. The short bench saga will continue.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

if your coach shortens the bench and you win do all of the players celebrate?

is shortening the bench a parent or a player issue?

This was a two "tier" question that wouldn't be accepted under MH guidelines but here goes:

1. Yes, but would the short bench players also celebrate a loss to prove a point?

2. Not a parent or player issue because they didn't place the teams, maybe if your association has purely coach pick or following the mirage of evaluator placement, issues could be addressed here. The short bench saga will continue.

1. Ummm no. You're kidding right?

2. Yes we know who picks the teams. A better or maybe more specific question to the point he was making - who is really most ticked off when the coach rolls a short bench?

[JSR]

if your coach shortens the bench and you win do all of the players celebrate?

is shortening the bench a parent or a player issue?

This was a two "tier" question that wouldn't be accepted under MH guidelines but here goes:

1. Yes, but would the short bench players also celebrate a loss to prove a point?

2. Not a parent or player issue because they didn't place the teams, maybe if your association has purely coach pick or following the mirage of evaluator placement, issues could be addressed here. The short bench saga will continue.

1. Ummm no. You're kidding right?

2. Yes we know who picks the teams. A better or maybe more specific question to the point he was making - who is really most ticked off when the coach rolls a short bench?

The parents are ticked... the kids who were shorted are usually sad, confused and left feeling bad about themselves.... The short bench can be a great motivator for some players provided it doesn't happen every single game, and is used responsibly and with good communication but when it happens with frequency there is nothing good that comes from it.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

"Kids who are shorted are usually sad..."

Is that before or after they tackle the goalie during the massive victory celly and medal/trophy presentation?

Your closing paragraph was perfect. Time and place for all ice time choices, including short bench.

And I truly hope that the kids who got shorted in the championship still recognize how critical they are/were getting to that game in the first place. The top line only gets better if they see good competition at practice.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

if your coach shortens the bench and you win do all of the players celebrate?

is shortening the bench a parent or a player issue?

This was a two "tier" question that wouldn't be accepted under MH guidelines but here goes:

1. Yes, but would the short bench players also celebrate a loss to prove a point?

2. Not a parent or player issue because they didn't place the teams, maybe if your association has purely coach pick or following the mirage of evaluator placement, issues could be addressed here. The short bench saga will continue.

1. Ummm no. You're kidding right?

2. Yes we know who picks the teams. A better or maybe more specific question to the point he was making - who is really most ticked off when the coach rolls a short bench?

Yawn...Do you actually know who is picking the team?

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

I don't get your point. Tryout/selection criteria well established up front to be "fair and impartial." Whether or not the best 16 skaters are the 16 actually chosen, well that's a topic for another day (and thread.)

[Ugottobekiddingme]

I don't get your point. Tryout/selection criteria well established up front to be "fair and impartial." Whether or not the best 16 skaters are the 16 actually chosen, well that's a topic for another day (and thread.)

You did get my point...yawn.

[Sats81]

No short benches on Christmas !!!

lol

[andovercw]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

[Froggy Richards]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

We all know that andover, but don't let reality get in the way of our, "Great Debate."

[Ugottobekiddingme]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

We all know that andover, but don't let reality get in the way of our, "Great Debate."

Froggy just leaped into first place and has become the monitor of the short bench "debate", good luck participants and may the best frog cross the finish line.

[JSR]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

I agree that occurs but there are plenty of parents who I have seen who do care even when it's not their son involved. In fact I have seen a parent stand up to a coach regarding short benching when their kid was the one getting the most playing time and extra shifts. So that is not an "absolute" rule

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

New to hockey parent(s)?
I give a pass to that jacka** behavior in year one, hoping they pick up on the culture and quit embarrassing their kid and coaching from the bench.

Or they will disintegrate into madness and walk over to the bench during the game, go to locker room between periods, or pound on the glass to get their kids attention.

All admitted and shameful behaviors I fess up to season 1.

Second point, the father who spoke up to the coach whose kid played more than other kids on the bench probably did so because of the crap being said in the stands more so than any moral imperative of equality. Now when the other parents complain he can say he spoke to the coach! Asking for less playing time? Risk your kid being benched instead? No way no day. That's all I have to say.

I'm not a poet but I play one on this forum.

[JSR]

It has been my observation that a short bench is ok until it is your own kid that is on the bench. I've seen mothers crying and screaming one year and all smiles the next. They didn't care one bit about the other kids and their parents who just got shorted.

New to hockey parent(s)?
I give a pass to that jacka** behavior in year one, hoping they pick up on the culture and quit embarrassing their kid and coaching from the bench.

Or they will disintegrate into madness and walk over to the bench during the game, go to locker room between periods, or pound on the glass to get their kids attention.

All admitted and shameful behaviors I fess up to season 1.

Second point, the father who spoke up to the coach whose kid played more than other kids on the bench probably did so because of the crap being said in the stands more so than any moral imperative of equality. Now when the other parents complain he can say he spoke to the coach! Asking for less playing time? Risk your kid being benched instead? No way no day. That's all I have to say.

I'm not a poet but I play one on this forum.

Actually the parent in question has three sons. One is one of the best players in the country and is committed to a D1 college, the other will be playing junior hockey next season, and the third son is his youngest and he stood up to the coach feeling he knows a thing or two about the game. His point to the coach was because of all the extra shifts, double shifts and short benching it was, in his words, "teaching his son how to play the game incorrectly and causing him to form bad habits". His biggest bad habit gripe was his son was "saving his energy" and "not playing every shift to it's fullest" because he knew he'd get double shifted orhis teammates would get short benched. Several times the kid tried coming off the ice because he was spent and the coach wouldn't let him, that is how bad the short benching was on that team..... So you are actually wrong about your assumptions......