The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://ushsho.com/forums/
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adult coaches to not get kicked out of games. It is an educational experience for the youth players and coaches should be expected to be role models. Especially if the ref is a 15 year old that the coach is berating. Personally, I believe poor refs provide some of the best opportunities for teaching. If it's about the scoreboard over teaching then we have some bigger issues to contend with.frederick61 wrote:I believe it will have a negative impact especially on D4 teams. Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids. If a district wants to turn the coach into a "team role model", then let them drop competitive hockey and shut down the score board.
The boundary between parents, coaches, board members and rules (usually unevenly enforced) constantly changes. Now the refs have the power. Can you a imagine a 15 year old referee kicking a coach, especially a kid that is a "Bevis and Butthead" fan.
Youth hockey suffers enough without good coaches. Good coaching retains youth participation. As I said before, if this is not a Minnesota Hockey rule (state wide), then keep out of D4 this year. I know they use kids to ref.
Are these game suspensions consecutive or concurrent with the USA Hockey rulebook suspension. 4 Games because of something. Nothing short of death in hockey warrants that kind of treatment. I will add maybe encouraging kids to do illegal acts against opponents might count but comeon.frederick61 wrote:Coaches beware. District 4 has a rule that says a coach is automatically fined $100 for being ejected from a game plus a three game suspension. Is this a Minnesota Hockey rule? If not, don't schedule D4 teams.
I commend District 4 for taking a strong position against misbehaving coaches. There is already a review process in place to deal with coaches receiving game misconducts. It should be extended to include whether the ejection was reasonable and the fine is justified. Believe me, I've seen plenty of coaches plead their case why their behavior was reasonable under the circumstances. Very, very rarely were the coaches actions justified. Most of the time it is ridiculous. If you can't be a good role model for children then work on improving or don't coach children. There are plenty out there that think they are a big time coach and don't need to change. It is or at least should be more about "life" development than "hockey" development. Just my outrageous opinion.frederick61 wrote:Assume you are a volunteer coach on a D4 team entered in a Turkey day tourney outside of D4. You have just driven 250 miles to play the first game and something goofy happens and you get kicked out of the game. Now you have little choice but to get back in the car and drive home seething all the way and then pay a $100. I would probably want to resign by the time I got back. It is not worth it.
Competition works only if everybody is under the same rules. The D4 rule puts all the D4 coaches at a disadvantage by forcing him or her to operate under a severer set of rules then their competition. It sets them and their D4 team up for failure. It would be nice if rules could be made and everybody would follow them and the D4 board would not have to deal with the individual “what happened” when it comes up. But life does not work that way.
Remember, Minnesota Hockey is not the NHL or even high school. It is about developing kids. It should reflect competition as it is in life in a fair as possible environment. It is not perfect and to try to “perfect” coaches at the youth level is a step in the wrong direction. What happens to the D4 kids in the future when they play for a team whose coach growls at everybody and is just is a good coach?
By the way the rule specifically states that the $100 has to be paid by the coach.
[/quote]Fred…..Fred…..Fred…..frederick61 wrote:I believe it will have a negative impact especially on D4 teams. Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids. If a district wants to turn the coach into a "team role model", then let them drop competitive hockey and shut down the score board.
The boundary between parents, coaches, board members and rules (usually unevenly enforced) constantly changes. Now the refs have the power. Can you a imagine a 15 year old referee kicking a coach, especially a kid that is a "Bevis and Butthead" fan.
Youth hockey suffers enough without good coaches. Good coaching retains youth participation. As I said before, if this is not a Minnesota Hockey rule (state wide), then keep out of D4 this year. I know they use kids to ref.
What an obnoxious reply. But needless to say we can see which of these posters spear headed this new rule.hiptzech wrote:frederick61 wrote:I believe it will have a negative impact especially on D4 teams. Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids. If a district wants to turn the coach into a "team role model", then let them drop competitive hockey and shut down the score board.
The boundary between parents, coaches, board members and rules (usually unevenly enforced) constantly changes. Now the refs have the power. Can you a imagine a 15 year old referee kicking a coach, especially a kid that is a "Bevis and Butthead" fan.
Youth hockey suffers enough without good coaches. Good coaching retains youth participation. As I said before, if this is not a Minnesota Hockey rule (state wide), then keep out of D4 this year. I know they use kids to ref.
Fred…..Fred…..Fred…..
You have been gone since May and now you come back with this? I am disappointed, you have been spending too much time in the sun….Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids?!? Really? Now the refs have the power? Good coaching does retain youth participation as long as the good coaching is good coaching. Here we go again, Fred.
As an official I am not a particular fan of this rule as it is too harsh and it is likely that it will not be used properly. With the exception of the “Bevis and Butthead” fan I would not expect to see this rule enforced. Furthermore, the “Bevis and Butthead” official will likely be considered during a hearing in which is conducted for game misconducts and suspensions by the district. Sorry, I don’t really buy this rule and I personally think it is a joke. I did check the district web site and found it in the meeting mins. This rule will likely be enforced for that problem coach that just can’t seem to get it right.
Knowing that I am going to cost a coach $100 and a potential 3 games suspension, I would do everything I could to avoid the Game Misconduct. The negative aspect of this rule has little to do with retaining good coaches as much as it has to do with putting the players into a much worse situation. If a ref knows what the ramifications are for a Game Misconduct for Abuse of an Official, he/she may be more likely to ignore the coach thus allowing for the conduct to continue. If it is bad calls made by the official that irritated the coach they will likely end up getting worse, thus agitating the coach that much more. Soon, not only will the officiating team loose the bench and the game the entire building will start to chime in. On the flip side, there is no reason for a coach to conduct himself in a negative manner. With the rule modifications made last year, there is more latitude provided to the coach and less “Power” to the official. Before you jump up and down, Fredrick I will explain. Prior to the rule modification to Rule #601(i.2) the process was a bench penalty, followed by a Game Misconduct if the behavior persisted (regardless of when). Now the with the re-write of the rule the coach is allowed to receive a bench minor, serve the penalty time and then go back to the bad behavior only to re-start the process. You could end up with an entire period (or game for that matter) of hockey virtually short handed due to recurring bench penalties and nothing that anyone could do about it. So if the officials and coach know this rule you could end up with one of your “Good” coaches coaching while enabling a bad situation for the kids.
USA Hockey Rule Book: Rule Change Summary
Rule # Rule Description of Change
601(i.2) Abuse of Officials and Other Misconduct
Allows for game misconduct to be assessed to a Team Official for persisting
in any course of conduct for which the team has previously been assessed a
bench minor penalty.
CASEBOOK FOR PLAYING RULES
RULE 601 ABUSE OF OFFICIAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT
Situation 17
The head coach is assessed a bench minor penalty for improper conduct during the first period. During the second period the coach again exhibits improper conduct. Is the coach assessed a game misconduct because the improper conduct has been repeated?
No. Rule Reference 601(i.2).
The game misconduct for persisting in the conduct for which a bench minor penalty has been assessed only applies if the incident is continuous. Once the penalty has been served, the penalty sequence again begins as a bench minor penalty. If the improper conduct is repeated while the bench minor penalty is being served, a game misconduct penalty can be assessed.
Would you agree that a good coach would figure out that he is in jeopardy of a Game Misconduct if he had received a bench penalty? A good coach teaches his players to read the official’s calls to figure out how the game will be called. You would think that a good coach would know the process as well and shouldn’t be concerned about a $100 fine plus a 3 game suspension. If one of your “Bevis and Butthead” officials did not follow the proper process of calling the Abuse of Official penalties and kicks the coach out at the drop of the hat it will come out in the game report. There will be no $100 fine and 3 game suspension if the process is not followed properly.
Now Freddy, you are the numbers and stats guy. Here is an assignment for you and your favorite rule for this upcoming season. Track the Game Misconducts to coaches for District 4. Report the occurrences of these game misconducts as well as the findings from the district review board. I will bet you a bottle of Geritol or can Red Bull that for every ten Game Misconducts issued only one fine and suspension will be served. To further my prediction, the one coach that does receive the fine and suspension will be a repeat offender.
I will hang up and listen.
That's probably a short list. I know my district does not support misbehaving coaches except with some education as to why they should behave. ALL coach game misconducts require an appearance before the board. That is generally deterant enough, but not for some. I don't see how this rule leaves the children unprotected against renegade referees. It does help protect the children from regegade coaches.Bronc wrote:What an obnoxious reply. But needless to say we can see which of these posters spear headed this new rule.hiptzech wrote:frederick61 wrote:I believe it will have a negative impact especially on D4 teams. Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids. If a district wants to turn the coach into a "team role model", then let them drop competitive hockey and shut down the score board.
The boundary between parents, coaches, board members and rules (usually unevenly enforced) constantly changes. Now the refs have the power. Can you a imagine a 15 year old referee kicking a coach, especially a kid that is a "Bevis and Butthead" fan.
Youth hockey suffers enough without good coaches. Good coaching retains youth participation. As I said before, if this is not a Minnesota Hockey rule (state wide), then keep out of D4 this year. I know they use kids to ref.
Fred…..Fred…..Fred…..
You have been gone since May and now you come back with this? I am disappointed, you have been spending too much time in the sun….Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids?!? Really? Now the refs have the power? Good coaching does retain youth participation as long as the good coaching is good coaching. Here we go again, Fred.
As an official I am not a particular fan of this rule as it is too harsh and it is likely that it will not be used properly. With the exception of the “Bevis and Butthead” fan I would not expect to see this rule enforced. Furthermore, the “Bevis and Butthead” official will likely be considered during a hearing in which is conducted for game misconducts and suspensions by the district. Sorry, I don’t really buy this rule and I personally think it is a joke. I did check the district web site and found it in the meeting mins. This rule will likely be enforced for that problem coach that just can’t seem to get it right.
Knowing that I am going to cost a coach $100 and a potential 3 games suspension, I would do everything I could to avoid the Game Misconduct. The negative aspect of this rule has little to do with retaining good coaches as much as it has to do with putting the players into a much worse situation. If a ref knows what the ramifications are for a Game Misconduct for Abuse of an Official, he/she may be more likely to ignore the coach thus allowing for the conduct to continue. If it is bad calls made by the official that irritated the coach they will likely end up getting worse, thus agitating the coach that much more. Soon, not only will the officiating team loose the bench and the game the entire building will start to chime in. On the flip side, there is no reason for a coach to conduct himself in a negative manner. With the rule modifications made last year, there is more latitude provided to the coach and less “Power” to the official. Before you jump up and down, Fredrick I will explain. Prior to the rule modification to Rule #601(i.2) the process was a bench penalty, followed by a Game Misconduct if the behavior persisted (regardless of when). Now the with the re-write of the rule the coach is allowed to receive a bench minor, serve the penalty time and then go back to the bad behavior only to re-start the process. You could end up with an entire period (or game for that matter) of hockey virtually short handed due to recurring bench penalties and nothing that anyone could do about it. So if the officials and coach know this rule you could end up with one of your “Good” coaches coaching while enabling a bad situation for the kids.
USA Hockey Rule Book: Rule Change Summary
Rule # Rule Description of Change
601(i.2) Abuse of Officials and Other Misconduct
Allows for game misconduct to be assessed to a Team Official for persisting
in any course of conduct for which the team has previously been assessed a
bench minor penalty.
CASEBOOK FOR PLAYING RULES
RULE 601 ABUSE OF OFFICIAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT
Situation 17
The head coach is assessed a bench minor penalty for improper conduct during the first period. During the second period the coach again exhibits improper conduct. Is the coach assessed a game misconduct because the improper conduct has been repeated?
No. Rule Reference 601(i.2).
The game misconduct for persisting in the conduct for which a bench minor penalty has been assessed only applies if the incident is continuous. Once the penalty has been served, the penalty sequence again begins as a bench minor penalty. If the improper conduct is repeated while the bench minor penalty is being served, a game misconduct penalty can be assessed.
Would you agree that a good coach would figure out that he is in jeopardy of a Game Misconduct if he had received a bench penalty? A good coach teaches his players to read the official’s calls to figure out how the game will be called. You would think that a good coach would know the process as well and shouldn’t be concerned about a $100 fine plus a 3 game suspension. If one of your “Bevis and Butthead” officials did not follow the proper process of calling the Abuse of Official penalties and kicks the coach out at the drop of the hat it will come out in the game report. There will be no $100 fine and 3 game suspension if the process is not followed properly.
Now Freddy, you are the numbers and stats guy. Here is an assignment for you and your favorite rule for this upcoming season. Track the Game Misconducts to coaches for District 4. Report the occurrences of these game misconducts as well as the findings from the district review board. I will bet you a bottle of Geritol or can Red Bull that for every ten Game Misconducts issued only one fine and suspension will be served. To further my prediction, the one coach that does receive the fine and suspension will be a repeat offender.
I will hang up and listen.
Good coaches in D4 feel free to apply elsewhere there are quality districts and assoc you can coach in and will support you.
Huh?!? Maybe you should re-read, I don't agree with the rule...Maybe it was too long for you to understand that....To summarize, a coach need not worry about this rule unless he has problems with controlling his conduct. As far as dealing with a renegade ref, I would expect that the review board will detect that issue during the review of the game report, going through the interview process with the coach and reffing partners. I would expect the review process to be more diligent as you are talking about taking money from a volunteer coach as well as a 3 game suspension. It would be great to hear from the District 4 Supervisor of Referees as well as the Coach in Chief to get thier feedback...Bronc wrote:What an obnoxious reply. But needless to say we can see which of these posters spear headed this new rule.hiptzech wrote:Fred…..Fred…..Fred…..frederick61 wrote:I believe it will have a negative impact especially on D4 teams. Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids. If a district wants to turn the coach into a "team role model", then let them drop competitive hockey and shut down the score board.
The boundary between parents, coaches, board members and rules (usually unevenly enforced) constantly changes. Now the refs have the power. Can you a imagine a 15 year old referee kicking a coach, especially a kid that is a "Bevis and Butthead" fan.
Youth hockey suffers enough without good coaches. Good coaching retains youth participation. As I said before, if this is not a Minnesota Hockey rule (state wide), then keep out of D4 this year. I know they use kids to ref.
You have been gone since May and now you come back with this? I am disappointed, you have been spending too much time in the sun….Coaching youth hockey is a commitment that exceeds even a parents commitment to their kids?!? Really? Now the refs have the power? Good coaching does retain youth participation as long as the good coaching is good coaching. Here we go again, Fred.
As an official I am not a particular fan of this rule as it is too harsh and it is likely that it will not be used properly. With the exception of the “Bevis and Butthead” fan I would not expect to see this rule enforced. Furthermore, the “Bevis and Butthead” official will likely be considered during a hearing in which is conducted for game misconducts and suspensions by the district. Sorry, I don’t really buy this rule and I personally think it is a joke. I did check the district web site and found it in the meeting mins. This rule will likely be enforced for that problem coach that just can’t seem to get it right.
Knowing that I am going to cost a coach $100 and a potential 3 games suspension, I would do everything I could to avoid the Game Misconduct. The negative aspect of this rule has little to do with retaining good coaches as much as it has to do with putting the players into a much worse situation. If a ref knows what the ramifications are for a Game Misconduct for Abuse of an Official, he/she may be more likely to ignore the coach thus allowing for the conduct to continue. If it is bad calls made by the official that irritated the coach they will likely end up getting worse, thus agitating the coach that much more. Soon, not only will the officiating team loose the bench and the game the entire building will start to chime in. On the flip side, there is no reason for a coach to conduct himself in a negative manner. With the rule modifications made last year, there is more latitude provided to the coach and less “Power” to the official. Before you jump up and down, Fredrick I will explain. Prior to the rule modification to Rule #601(i.2) the process was a bench penalty, followed by a Game Misconduct if the behavior persisted (regardless of when). Now the with the re-write of the rule the coach is allowed to receive a bench minor, serve the penalty time and then go back to the bad behavior only to re-start the process. You could end up with an entire period (or game for that matter) of hockey virtually short handed due to recurring bench penalties and nothing that anyone could do about it. So if the officials and coach know this rule you could end up with one of your “Good” coaches coaching while enabling a bad situation for the kids.
USA Hockey Rule Book: Rule Change Summary
Rule # Rule Description of Change
601(i.2) Abuse of Officials and Other Misconduct
Allows for game misconduct to be assessed to a Team Official for persisting
in any course of conduct for which the team has previously been assessed a
bench minor penalty.
CASEBOOK FOR PLAYING RULES
RULE 601 ABUSE OF OFFICIAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT
Situation 17
The head coach is assessed a bench minor penalty for improper conduct during the first period. During the second period the coach again exhibits improper conduct. Is the coach assessed a game misconduct because the improper conduct has been repeated?
No. Rule Reference 601(i.2).
The game misconduct for persisting in the conduct for which a bench minor penalty has been assessed only applies if the incident is continuous. Once the penalty has been served, the penalty sequence again begins as a bench minor penalty. If the improper conduct is repeated while the bench minor penalty is being served, a game misconduct penalty can be assessed.
Would you agree that a good coach would figure out that he is in jeopardy of a Game Misconduct if he had received a bench penalty? A good coach teaches his players to read the official’s calls to figure out how the game will be called. You would think that a good coach would know the process as well and shouldn’t be concerned about a $100 fine plus a 3 game suspension. If one of your “Bevis and Butthead” officials did not follow the proper process of calling the Abuse of Official penalties and kicks the coach out at the drop of the hat it will come out in the game report. There will be no $100 fine and 3 game suspension if the process is not followed properly.
Now Freddy, you are the numbers and stats guy. Here is an assignment for you and your favorite rule for this upcoming season. Track the Game Misconducts to coaches for District 4. Report the occurrences of these game misconducts as well as the findings from the district review board. I will bet you a bottle of Geritol or can Red Bull that for every ten Game Misconducts issued only one fine and suspension will be served. To further my prediction, the one coach that does receive the fine and suspension will be a repeat offender.
I will hang up and listen.
Good coaches in D4 feel free to apply elsewhere there are quality districts and assoc you can coach in and will support you.
Being a volunteer and unpaid doesn't mean their aren't expectations and consequences for your actions. Coaches of youth sports should not be getting ejected from games. Does it happen when they just roll their eyes or ask a question? Hmmm, haven't seen that.jancze5 wrote:Doesn't this rule just give already obnoxious ref's just another chip on their shoulder?
These coaches are NOT paid to volunteer the 100+ hours they do a year. This is a sport driven by volunteers, the ONLY paid participants are the REFS. Fine ref's for sucking, not coaches for voicing their opinion when they suck.
I understand the spirit of the rule, to basically tell coaches to relax, but placing fines on volunteers is bad ju ju
and I'm sorry to ref bash when its August...
So the way to handle a young, inexperienced referee whenn they screw up is to get mad, read them the riot act, until the adult referee needs to step in and throw the coach out of the game. Is that they way they should handle mistakes made by their young players as well?frederick61 wrote:I have more then once. The refs (especially the younger ones) never read or understand the rule book. Usually a coach gets kicked when a younger ref screws up, the coach gets mad and the older ref steps in. A great deal of these type of incidents happen when the coach is the visiting coach.