Page 1 of 3
Game Misconduct – Ineligible player
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:04 pm
by curious_2011
Looking for a Public opinion…
In the first game of the District Tournament and half way through the 2nd period of the game the tournament coordinator stops the game, with news of an ineligible player on the ice. This player had a Game misconduct in the last league game prior to this game and was supposed to serve the Game misconduct the following game. They sent this ineligible player off the ice and then eventually both teams were told to go to the locker rooms, while they called the District director. The decision was that the ineligible Player will continue to play in this game and sit the next game.
Here is a link to the Minnesota Hockey handbook (see page 32)
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... ok_rev.pdf
Excerpt from the handbook:
IX. PROTESTS
Protests relating to the playing of the game are not allowed in any MH play. This includes scrimmage games, league games, invitational tournament games and MH tournament games with the following exceptions:
A. Districts or Leagues may establish a protest policy/process for their district or league games. If such a policy/process is adopted, the cognizant district director shall be the final authority - no further appeals are allowed.
B.
Ineligible player protests will be accepted in MH sanctioned competition. The protesting team must furnish evidence substantiating the ineligibility of the player in question. The protest must be made to the cognizant district director or tournament director who will rule on the player's eligibility and whose decision shall be final. If the player is ruled ineligible, all games in which the ineligible player participated will be forfeited.
Looking for feedback from those with similar experiences or how do (would) other District directors or tournament coordinators would have handled this Situation...
Thanks in Advance.
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:48 pm
by 7A22A
The bylaws are poorly written and generally are not understood by board members. Because of this, the district director usually has the final say and that is their way out of any / their incompetance and / or to deny debate. Without even reading this, I can tell you the player was ineligible. The game played in, should be a 1-0 forfeit and then the player should sit out the next game to fullfill the penalty. However, they made the ruling; you are stuck with it. It does not mean it was handled correctly and welcome to the politics of hockey.
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:31 pm
by sioux
What district and what level of play?
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:41 pm
by Hockey Fan101
D10 - PWA. Worth mentioning, the kid also scored at least 2 goals. One of the top players on the team.
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:58 pm
by the_juiceman
7A22A wrote:The bylaws are poorly written and generally are not understood by board members. Because of this, the district director usually has the final say and that is their way out of any / their incompetance and / or to deny debate. Without even reading this, I can tell you the player was ineligible. The game played in, should be a 1-0 forfeit and then the player should sit out the next game to fullfill the penalty. However, they made the ruling; you are stuck with it. It does not mean it was handled correctly and welcome to the politics of hockey.
what should have happened, is once they found out he was inelegible, he should have been removed from the ice (and bench area), and suspended for the next game as well. Nothing could be undone (goals) and play would continue, as to finish out the game.
by the way--just curious-- what team? when was it brought to attention of the officials? did they end up winning?
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:00 pm
by ThePuckStopsHere
the_juiceman wrote:7A22A wrote:The bylaws are poorly written and generally are not understood by board members. Because of this, the district director usually has the final say and that is their way out of any / their incompetance and / or to deny debate. Without even reading this, I can tell you the player was ineligible. The game played in, should be a 1-0 forfeit and then the player should sit out the next game to fullfill the penalty. However, they made the ruling; you are stuck with it. It does not mean it was handled correctly and welcome to the politics of hockey.
what should have happened, is once they found out he was inelegible, he should have been removed from the ice (and bench area), and suspended for the next game as well. Nothing could be undone (goals) and play would continue, as to finish out the game.
by the way--just curious-- what team? when was it brought to attention of the officials? did they end up winning?[/quot
Team Centennial and yes they won that game, but as good fortune would have it they lost to Blaine today.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:35 pm
by rockcrusher
You mean to tell me this players coaches did not know he wasn't supposed to play? Pathetic. They should have to sit out a game too for being ignorant! What an embarrassment to their organization!!
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:22 pm
by buttend
ThePuckStopsHere wrote:the_juiceman wrote:7A22A wrote:The bylaws are poorly written and generally are not understood by board members. Because of this, the district director usually has the final say and that is their way out of any / their incompetance and / or to deny debate. Without even reading this, I can tell you the player was ineligible. The game played in, should be a 1-0 forfeit and then the player should sit out the next game to fullfill the penalty. However, they made the ruling; you are stuck with it. It does not mean it was handled correctly and welcome to the politics of hockey.
what should have happened, is once they found out he was inelegible, he should have been removed from the ice (and bench area), and suspended for the next game as well. Nothing could be undone (goals) and play would continue, as to finish out the game.
by the way--just curious-- what team? when was it brought to attention of the officials? did they end up winning?[/quot
Team Centennial and yes they won that game, but as good fortune would have it they lost to Blaine today.
If this had happened to a lower profile team like Irondale rather than Centennial would the District director had made the same decision? I doubt it. If it was Irondale they would have had to forfeit 1-0 and the player immediately removed from play.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:57 pm
by Ugottobekiddingme
This is an interesting topic...did the on-site lab coats make the decision or did the DD render the final decision?
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:12 pm
by redlightclub
Can anyone clarify if a player with 4 minor penalties and a 10 minute misconduct (checking from behind) should receive a game misconduct?
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:28 pm
by blindref
Yes,
Five penalties of any flavor will earn you a Game Misconduct for that game and the next.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:33 am
by Ugottobekiddingme
Curious_2011....bottom line here without this turning into hockey message board chaos. A protest needed to take place during the decision of the game by coaches involved within the game. After the fact has no relevance towards prior decisions and will lead to nothing. It's unfortunate but rules are rules and sometimes D10 doesn't follow the letter of law...depending on how it is interpreted. Wrong decision was rendered but past the point of discussion and the kids need to continue with district play. You're welcome D10....
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:55 am
by curious_2011
buttend wrote:
If this had happened to a lower profile team like Irondale rather than Centennial would the District director had made the same decision? I doubt it. If it was Irondale they would have had to forfeit 1-0 and the player immediately removed from play.
Exactly!!!
rockcrusher wrote:You mean to tell me this players coaches did not know he wasn't supposed to play? Pathetic. They should have to sit out a game too for being ignorant! What an embarrassment to their organization!!
Exactly!!
Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Curious_2011....bottom line here without this turning into hockey message board chaos. A protest needed to take place during the decision of the game by coaches involved within the game. After the fact has no relevance towards prior decisions and will lead to nothing. It's unfortunate but rules are rules and sometimes D10 doesn't follow the letter of law...depending on how it is interpreted. Wrong decision was rendered but past the point of discussion and the kids need to continue with district play. You're welcome D10....
A protest was made to League coordinator During the game (once they discovered the ineligible player) and after game (when they allowed the ineligible player to continue to play), followed up with a protest to the district Director.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:06 am
by greybeard58
Does anyone have the complete story,from what I have seen here there has to be more information to be reported,or as Paul Harvey would say, now for the rest of the story. Lets get the complete story and then judge whether it was right or wrong.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:20 am
by MNHawker
Story=Ineligible player in a game
Rule=Game is Forfeited by the team with ineligible player score is 0-1
End of Story
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:34 am
by elliott70
MNHawker wrote:Story=Ineligible player in a game
Rule=Game is Forfeited by the team with ineligible player score is 0-1
End of Story
Usually there is a bit more to the story before you get to your story.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:21 am
by the_juiceman
MNHawker wrote:Story=Ineligible player in a game
Rule=Game is Forfeited by the team with ineligible player score is 0-1
End of Story
where does it state that the game should be ruled a forfeit? Does anyone know what the circumstances were to warrant the previous game misconduct?
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:28 am
by Hockey Fan101
Does it matter what the reason was, rules are rules. Just to make a few of you happy, here is what was said. The kid got in a fight in the previous game. D10 dropped the ball on this one, along with the kids head coach for allowing him to play.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:48 am
by hockey_is_a_choice
I thought Paul Harvey was a wise and interesting man--he likely did not spend time on a youth hockey blog calling for the public lynching of a coach without knowing the relevant facts. The reality is District 10 has some experience with this type of situation and the result was the same. Hence, no game was forfeited and no coach was scheduled for public hanging. Although I am not a fan of District 10 Director Tiny Timm, he set precedence on this decision based on past decisions and he could not carve out a new course of action without incurring the wrath of the Centennial nation, which tracks Timmy's decisions in their equivalent of the Farmer's Almanac. As for the Centennial/Irondale conspiracy theory, winning and being a long-standing team (as opposed to a newbie) in District 10 does have its privileges. My only question is who from the Andover Association ratted on Centennial. Given the fact that Centennial played Andover in the final game of league play and Andover didn't make it into the final round of eight teams for the D10 playoffs, I smell sour grapes.
Sent from my iPad
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:05 am
by observer
I thought Paul Harvey was a wise and interesting man--he likely did not spend time on a youth hockey blog calling for the public lynching of a coach without knowing the relevant facts. The reality is District 10 has some experience with this type of situation and the result was the same. Hence, no game was forfeited and no coach was scheduled for public hanging. Although I am not a fan of District 10 Director Tiny Timm, he set precedence on this decision based on past decisions and he could not carve out a new course of action without incurring the wrath of the Centennial nation, which tracks Timmy's decisions in their equivalent of the Farmer's Almanac. As for the Centennial/Irondale conspiracy theory, winning and being a long-standing team (as opposed to a newbie) in District 10 does have its privileges. My only question is who from the Andover Association ratted on Centennial. Given the fact that Centennial played Andover in the final game of league play and Andover didn't make it into the final round of eight teams for the D10 playoffs, I smell sour grapes.
What? He shouldn't have even been suited up. Some dishonest and deceptive people decided to have him dress and give it a whirl. The player and his parents had to know. The coach and manager should both be fined.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:11 am
by the_juiceman
Hockey Fan101 wrote:Does it matter what the reason was, rules are rules. Just to make a few of you happy, here is what was said. The kid got in a fight in the previous game. D10 dropped the ball on this one, along with the kids head coach for allowing him to play.
HockeyFan--relax alittle bit. i just want to know where it states that the game should have been ruled a forfeit? I agree he shouldn't be allowed to play. Once it was found out, he should have been removed, game continued, and he sits out the next game--maybe along with the head coach.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:29 am
by MrBoDangles
They actually let this kid still play in the game after it was figured out?
And then took him out for the next game giving the next team the advantage?
There is no way this game should not be forfeited. Who is running this circus?
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:43 am
by greybeard58
Still waiting for the rest of the story but will add a comment anyway.
The Coach will have to answer to his parents and board for his actions. Having beat their first opponent twice in league play by 3+goals in each game and took a chance.
He now had to play their next opponent without one of his best players against a team they beat by one goal each game in league play. Instead of having all players with a good chance of winning and getting a region seed no matter what happened the next game,the player sat out the second game and they lost.
They now have to win the next 2 games to get the #3 seed and one of the teams remaining in their way if they win is a team that Centennial tied and lost to during league play.
If they fail to make regions it could cost the coach his coaching position, now that would be a punishment that would be hard to match. I would rather face a District hearing than the parents and an association board in this situation.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:14 am
by observer
I'll add,
A lot of youth coaches don't know all the intricacies of all the rules. I've seen some in District disciplinary hearings that don't have a clue. Some are first year 24 year olds with no experience. The manager and association president, even parents, often know the rules better than some coaches. I'm not saying it's not his responsibility to know the rules I'm just saying they often don't.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:18 am
by pro2b@3
hockey_is_a_choice wrote:I thought Paul Harvey was a wise and interesting man--he likely did not spend time on a youth hockey blog calling for the public lynching of a coach without knowing the relevant facts. The reality is District 10 has some experience with this type of situation and the result was the same. Hence, no game was forfeited and no coach was scheduled for public hanging. Although I am not a fan of District 10 Director Tiny Timm, he set precedence on this decision based on past decisions and he could not carve out a new course of action without incurring the wrath of the Centennial nation, which tracks Timmy's decisions in their equivalent of the Farmer's Almanac. As for the Centennial/Irondale conspiracy theory, winning and being a long-standing team (as opposed to a newbie) in District 10 does have its privileges. My only question is who from the Andover Association ratted on Centennial. Given the fact that Centennial played Andover in the final game of league play and Andover didn't make it into the final round of eight teams for the D10 playoffs, I smell sour grapes.
Sent from my iPad
Andover has nothing to do with this situation. Game misconducts needs to be reported to League coordinator within X amount of hours. Game Score Sheets need to faxed, emailed or sent to league coordinator. League coordinator had a copy of the Score sheet of the game which was 9 days before the District tournament started.
It's not about Ratting out or Sour Grapes.
READ the MN hockey handbook on page 31.
Bottom line is there is a RULE. Rule clearly states the game should be forfeited
Coaches, Players, Refs, League Coordinators, and District Directors all need to follow them.
Regardless of how many times or by how many goals Team A beats Team B, doesn’t matter.