HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

What should they be?
Give me your top 3 by priority.

1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
3. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.

TriedThat2 wrote:1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
3. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.

Ditto.

TriedThat2 wrote:1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.

2. Tier 1 hockey at district level (NOT for my kids!) But this is America and there should be that choice!

TriedThat2 wrote:3. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.

1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Educate and reward good consistent refereeing making a point of emphasis the existing rules for illegal checks and the harsher penalties for the checking from behind, head contact and charging.
3. Reevaluate the "Fair play point". Are referees afraid to enforce rules in existence because teams might loose fair play point?

muckandgrind wrote:

TriedThat2 wrote:1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
3. Adamently oppose USAH's body checking proposal.

Ditto.

Ditto squared. If MN hockey does not stop this at the USA hockey level, then their next task would be to not have it apply to MN through whatever means necessary.

1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Educate and reward good consistent refereeing making a point of emphasis the existing rules for illegal checks and the harsher penalties for the checking from behind, head contact and charging.
3. Develop a fairer system that allows small associations to more fairly compete with larger associations. Require multiple balanced A teams for every "X" number players at a given level.

1. Find a way to implement the recommendations of the ADM model without compromising the current format of Minnesota Youth Hockey. Recommendation: At the Bantam/14U level have district built teams that mirror the high school elite league and meet the guidance of ADM for the elite player, Assocations may lose a handful of their top players, but these kids would be competing every game against the best of the best in the state at a key development age.

2. Grow the girls game and find a quality option for players that are not Varsity and older than 12U. 14U seems to be 6 teams deep and that's the big associations. There seems to be a disconnect between the 3. High schools need girsl to fill rosters but schools can't afford the programs. Recommendation: a 16U girls league and eliminate JV hockey. (this may be true for boys to, get rid of JV, have Junior Gold or U16's more of the norm)

3. Evaluate your officials, if you have one guy that makes 732 calls a month and the average is 75 by everyone else, go watch that guy. It's likely he's the same one who kicks out coaches for saying "hey ref, can we talk" and the one who routinely removes parents from tournament rinks for disliking his "head contact" call for the 7th time in the game. REFS are the only people paid in this whole gig, they should be the most held accountable for their actions and they go a long way into the experience of a player. A hard hit is not a penalty.

nhl'er wrote:1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Educate and reward good consistent refereeing making a point of emphasis the existing rules for illegal checks and the harsher penalties for the checking from behind, head contact and charging.
3. Develop a fairer system that allows small associations to more fairly compete with larger associations. Require multiple balanced A teams for every "X" number players at a given level.

NHL'er... you forced me to get away from my "keep checking" soapbox now...

I respectfully disagree with your last point, although I support your general goal. I strongly do not think its MN hockey's place to tell the local associations how to allocate its players. That will be the birth of AAA hockey in MN if you force the Edina's and EP's of the world to split their best kids... those kids and their parents WILL find a way to play with one another for developmental purposes and who can blame them. Anyways, if you disagree please at least recognize that you can't force parents to play in MN hockey if you create a market for alternatives.

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

nhl'er wrote:1. Adamantly oppose USAH's body checking proposal.
2. Educate and reward good consistent refereeing making a point of emphasis the existing rules for illegal checks and the harsher penalties for the checking from behind, head contact and charging.
3. Develop a fairer system that allows small associations to more fairly compete with larger associations. Require multiple balanced A teams for every "X" number players at a given level.

NHL'er... you forced me to get away from my "keep checking" soapbox now...

I respectfully disagree with your last point, although I support your general goal. I strongly do not think its MN hockey's place to tell the local associations how to allocate its players. That will be the birth of AAA hockey in MN if you force the Edina's and EP's of the world to split their best kids... those kids and their parents WILL find a way to play with one another for developmental purposes and who can blame them. Anyways, if you disagree please at least recognize that you can't force parents to play in MN hockey if you create a market for alternatives.

CHC..I don't disagree with you, I don't know what the right answer is, but there needs to be a more fair system than what exists today. It's a numbers deal, only with some rare exceptions can a association that has less than 50 players for example at a level compete with associations that have 3x the numbers. Trying to maintain player passion for the game and strong work ethic when you are consistantly losing is a major challenge for small programs and ultimately drives players away from the game. Since we don't have options of where to play in MH like we do in the summer, we need a better system that creates more equitable play or allow families more options to better compete and develop their childrens skills, both team and individual.

nhl'er wrote: CHC..I don't disagree with you, I don't know what the right answer is, but there needs to be a more fair system than what exists today. It's a numbers deal, only with some rare exceptions can a association that has less than 50 players for example at a level compete with associations that have 3x the numbers. Trying to maintain player passion for the game and strong work ethic when you are consistantly losing is a major challenge for small programs and ultimately drives players away from the game. Since we don't have options of where to play in MH like we do in the summer, we need a better system that creates more equitable play or allow families more options to better compete and develop their childrens skills, both team and individual.

In a perfect world I agree... but not the expense of taking away local association control. There's a whole post subject on AA v. A for PeeWee hockey, I've come down in support so that Edina and EP's B1 team can compete with smaller town's A teams.

I just don't agree with "we need to force Edina and EP" to be worse so that our smaller associations can compete... I'm not saying your advocating this, but if you force them to have two A teams, that is the necessary result - and the desired result if the goal is to have more parity at PeeWee A.

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:3. Reevaluate the "Fair play point". Are referees afraid to enforce rules in existence because teams might loose fair play point?

Really? I have never witnessed this.

drop the puck wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:3. Reevaluate the "Fair play point". Are referees afraid to enforce rules in existence because teams might loose fair play point?

Really? I have never witnessed this.

That's why it was a question, speculation maybe. None of can guess what people think but I have seen some very inconsistent penalty calling with regards to check from behind, charging etc. and wonder if fair play points would ever enter the thought process ... even subconsciously.

drop the puck wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:3. Reevaluate the "Fair play point". Are referees afraid to enforce rules in existence because teams might loose fair play point?

Really? I have never witnessed this.

I bet you unknowingly have. When I officiated the FPP was a source of contention for many younger, newer refs, I hated it. The abuse taken there was frustrating, a kid makes a good call only to be abused by a coach because it cost him a point.

1) Dump the FPP and make leading with the hands, forearm, and elbow and all the stick work points of empasis. The NHL does a better job of this than any lower level and their players and coaches adapted.
2) Allow checking in peewees
3) Some sort of cost containment, there are far too many traveling teams and districts forcing district games upon their members just to be in the district. The price of hockey and traveling in particular is killing it.

1. The checking issue (oppose) in pee wees.
2. The waiver process allowing far too many teams to skate with 13 skaters when they have enough numbers to skate with 15 at A levels.
3. Opposing the ban on checking- and enforcing strict penalties on repeated violators

1. checking rule is tough - the second part (more body contact in squirts) is kind of lost behind the checking ban for pee wee. There is a definate need for more body contact at the squirt level. But i also recently watched a pee wee b game where all the kids did is try to run each other over. IF you play PWB you need to be focusing on skills...not being a goon.

I vote increase body contact at squirts, body contact but no checking @ PWB, full checking at PWA.

2. Enfore checking from behind. Every pee wee or bantam game you watch kids run in the "gray" area repeatedly. It just needs to stop.

3. Tag up rule...makes summer hockey much more enjoyable and maintains the flow so much better.

black sheep wrote:1. checking rule is tough - the second part (more body contact in squirts) is kind of lost behind the checking ban for pee wee. There is a definate need for more body contact at the squirt level. But i also recently watched a pee wee b game where all the kids did is try to run each other over. IF you play PWB you need to be focusing on skills...not being a goon.

I vote increase body contact at squirts, body contact but no checking @ PWB, full checking at PWA.

.

CHECKING IS A SKILL!!!!!

It really irks me that some out there think that "skills" just refer to skating, passing, shooting and stick handling. Proper checking is as important as any of the other skills. Taking checking out of hockey is like taking tackling out of football....and again, there is no evidence that legal checking results in a increase in concussions.

Here's my concern with allowing "body contact" but not checking. What's the difference? How is a ref supposed to determine the difference between the two. Just imagine the confusion this will create between players, coaches and refs:

[Ref blows whistle]
Ref: Two minutes #9 for checking.
Coach: Ref! That was just body contact!! Not a check! He just rode him off the puck.
Ref: Nope, he leaned into him just a tad too much.
Coach: How do you figure?
Ref: This is how I interpret the rule.


IMO, checking IS "body contact". If you mean by "body contact": head shots, charging, roughing, boarding, and checking from behind......THOSE ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL. Enforce the rule book and leave checking alone.

#1 Grow U14 hockey. #2 fight usah on the pee-wee checking issue. #3. Start district level A teams so you don't have kids leaving for the private sector that is sure to boom in coming years.

gorilla1 wrote:1. The checking issue (oppose) in pee wees.
2. The waiver process allowing far too many teams to skate with 13 skaters when they have enough numbers to skate with 15 at A levels.
3. Opposing the ban on checking- and enforcing strict penalties on repeated violators

Gorillz... Love 1 and 3, I have a large problem with 2. What's wrong with an association deciding that they only have 13 A players? Many 14 and 15 numbered bubble players would only be HURT not helped by playing on the A team.

I coach and have had 14 players twice, 13 once, and 15 once. On my team with 14, once I should have taken 13 (or 12 even) and the parents of the 13 and 14 player agree, but its hard at PeeWees. B1 = TOUCHES, and this is priceless for a developing player. A parent would be wise to ignore the labels and just ask the coaches to put their player on a team that he will compete with confidence in and get plenty of touches.

It's always a tough call, and the competition you play during the year plays a role (D6 v. D9), but I strongly oppose taking these type of decisions away from the local associations.

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

gorilla1 wrote:1. The checking issue (oppose) in pee wees.
2. The waiver process allowing far too many teams to skate with 13 skaters when they have enough numbers to skate with 15 at A levels.
3. Opposing the ban on checking- and enforcing strict penalties on repeated violators

Gorillz... Love 1 and 3, I have a large problem with 2. What's wrong with an association deciding that they only have 13 A players? Many 14 and 15 numbered bubble players would only be HURT not helped by playing on the A team.

I coach and have had 14 players twice, 13 once, and 15 once. On my team with 14, once I should have taken 13 (or 12 even) and the parents of the 13 and 14 player agree, but its hard at PeeWees. B1 = TOUCHES, and this is priceless for a developing player. A parent would be wise to ignore the labels and just ask the coaches to put their player on a team that he will compete with confidence in and get plenty of touches.

It's always a tough call, and the competition you play during the year plays a role (D6 v. D9), but I strongly oppose taking these type of decisions away from the local associations.

Coach - Not sure how big your association is but skater 14 & 15 in say (D6/D9) are not ankle skaters. Not saying the associations should be mandated to carry a number - but in the larger associations would this not foster the "development" we all throw around on this board?

Puck Whisperer wrote:

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
It's always a tough call, and the competition you play during the year plays a role (D6 v. D9), but I strongly oppose taking these type of decisions away from the local associations.

Coach - Not sure how big your association is but skater 14 & 15 in say (D6/D9) are not ankle skaters. Not saying the associations should be mandated to carry a number - but in the larger associations would this not foster the "development" we all throw around on this board?

Whisper - I'm not sure I completely understand what you're getting at since I don't think that anyone who is not an ankle skater is necessarily an A level player. I also don't think size has much to do with things, but rather than talent pool. If you have 15 players who will play A hockey and touch the puck on a regular basis (really just "compete" and be rewarded by their competition with having an opportunity to make plays), then you should have 15 players.

Jack Blatherwick argues for 13 or fewer on every team, which gets hard to do because of limited resources. At PeeWee's, the kids usually play three 12 min. stop periods. They don't get tired out going every other for that period of time.

An association needs to make its decisions based on realities year to year. And in cases of Edina and EP, that decision should amost always be 15 skaters and 2 goalies... but I'm not going to require that... let them make the call - (like you recognized I know Whisper).

In FL the pee-wee A has 16 skaters. My son is a bubble kid first year. Good coaching, Good practice plans. I still think he may have developed more being a top end player on the B's vs low end on the A's. Just my opinion w/ this particular kid. They are all different. I think our bantam A's have 17 skaters not sure how that has gone for low end two or three kids.

1. Find a way to increase the number of players in Minneapolis and St Paul. Should have been a priority of the planning committee years ago!

2. Change voting process for elections so the registered members are used as cast by their representatives. Makes VP's and President more accountable to the membership.

3. To split the meeting format so that only the people actually involved woth youth/girls hockey vote on changes to their rules.

1. Develop a program to assist associations in adding more ice arenas.
2. Vote down the elimination of checking at the PeeWee level
3.Train refs to be more consistent with penalty calls.

MnMade-4-Life wrote: 2. Tier 1 hockey at district level (NOT for my kids!) But this is America and there should be that choice!

jancze5 wrote:
1. Find a way to implement the recommendations of the ADM model without compromising the current format of Minnesota Youth Hockey. Recommendation: At the Bantam/14U level have district built teams that mirror the high school elite league and meet the guidance of ADM for the elite player, Assocations may lose a handful of their top players, but these kids would be competing every game against the best of the best in the state at a key development age.

Elliot are these things realistic or pipe dreams for some of us?