HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

So a high school coach gets fired two game in and it doesn't warrant a thread? The girls topic dissapapoints! Craig Norwich fired after two games this season.

Trash Hauler wrote:So a high school coach gets fired two game in and it doesn't warrant a thread? The girls topic dissapapoints! Craig Norwich fired after two games this season.

Any reason given? Can't be his won/loss record after just two games.

Unverified, were there 2 ineligible players rostered/who played Varsity?

mnhcp wrote:Unverified, were there 2 ineligible players rostered/who played Varsity?

Hmmm, isn't this normally the responsibility of the Activities Director? Unless the coach intentionally concealed something that he knew from the AD, but that doesn't sound likely. Whatever the reason, it couldn't be good...

MNHockeyFan wrote:

mnhcp wrote:Unverified, were there 2 ineligible players rostered/who played Varsity?

Hmmm, isn't this normally the responsibility of the Activities Director? Unless the coach intentionally concealed something that he knew from the AD, but that doesn't sound likely. Whatever the reason, it couldn't be good...

It is the responsibility of the AD to make the coach aware of who is eligible....but if the coach puts them in anyway, it's no longer ther AD's problem.

Trash Hauler wrote:It is the responsibility of the AD to make the coach aware of who is eligible....but if the coach puts them in anyway, it's no longer ther AD's problem.

Well yes if that's really what happened then that would obviously be grounds for dismissal.

Apparently, one of the ineligible players used was the JV goalie, who is sitting out a transfer season. The varsity goalie went down with an injury, and Norwich put the ineligible goalie in to finish the game. Not an excuse, as he should know better, but doesn't look like an attempt to circumvent the rules, either.

AV dad wrote:Apparently, one of the ineligible players used was the JV goalie, who is sitting out a transfer season. The varsity goalie went down with an injury, and Norwich put the ineligible goalie in to finish the game. Not an excuse, as he should know better, but doesn't look like an attempt to circumvent the rules, either.

My hope is that this wasn't due to the rules for injured players - specifically goaltenders - being misunderstood in conjunction with the transfer ineligibility rules.

There are a special set of rules for player participation when considering the "periods per day" rule for goalies when an injury/illness comes into play.

It's been a few years, but my understanding is that the a single goalie can play all six periods of back-to-back JV & V games if the other goaltender(s) are not able to participate due to emergency illness/injury.

The example often used is that then a JV goalie can play the entire JV & V games, or if an injury happens before the third period of the V game, then the JV goalie can play.

What apparently complicated this situation is the fact that a goalie was playing JV due to transfer V ineligibility.

Sounds like the MSHSL may need to weigh in on this one as when the two rules come into play, not sure what the ruling should be.

I believe the intent of the allowing 6 periods from one goaltender is to decrease the chances of an inexperienced skater having to jump in the net and face shots.

In the spirit of the rule - I'd say the ineligible transfer goalie playing JV should be allowed to enter the V game to decrease the chances of an injured skater filling in as a V goalie AT LEAST FOR THAT CONTEST.

There are two things being discussed here.

1st. If an organization has an in-eligible player with the club certainly it's known and they also know not to play the in-eligible player in a varsity contest. I have no idea why they would even be sitting on the bench. That was a mistake.

2nd. A coach was fired. I can't imagine the coach was fired for making a mistake regarding a players in-eligibility. If the coach knew the player was in-eligible then he made a big mistake having her on the bench and an even bigger mistake putting her in a game. Fired? I'll guess the coach not only knew but had been told not to use this player and used her anyways so the supervisor had no choice.

I'll be curious if this affects the players eligibility to return to the JV team?

He was in a tough spot - I believe that at the time of the injury, he had only the ineligible goalie available to play.

Apple Valley played ER a few days later, and I can confirm that the ineligible goalie is still playing for the JV - doesn't appear she will be punished (nor should she be). They had another goalie available to play varsity the night night we played (and she played very well, in fact). The injured goalie is expected back in a couple weeks.

observer wrote:There are two things being discussed here.

1st. If an organization has an in-eligible player with the club certainly it's known and they also know not to play the in-eligible player in a varsity contest. I have no idea why they would even be sitting on the bench. That was a mistake.

2nd. A coach was fired. I can't imagine the coach was fired for making a mistake regarding a players in-eligibility. If the coach knew the player was in-eligible then he made a big mistake having her on the bench and an even bigger mistake putting her in a game. Fired? I'll guess the coach not only knew but had been told not to use this player and used her anyways so the supervisor had no choice.

I'll be curious if this affects the players eligibility to return to the JV team?

Good point - 2 things being discussed.

#1 - That was kind of my point above... Was it unclear about the ineligible player due to other language about use of goaltenders in injury/illness situation where two rules could be viewed as conflicting without clear guidance on priority? (I know, I know, ask for clarification - but I don't have the timing details here)

I prioritize the potential of injury to a skater in net over transfer eligibility concerns, but the MSHSL may not see it that way.

#2 Again, if this is the reason, was there an issue of misunderstanding?

Ultimately any coach must do what's in the student-athletes' best interest. I can understand how this could happen if a coach misunderstood the priority of the rules and dressed & played an ineligible player to eliminate injury potential to a skater in the net.

Lastly, I would hope that the player wouldn't be penalized for an admin or coaching decision.

AV dad wrote:He was in a tough spot - I believe that at the time of the injury, he had only the ineligible goalie available to play.

Apple Valley played ER a few days later, and I can confirm that the ineligible goalie is still playing for the JV - doesn't appear she will be punished (nor should she be). They had another goalie available to play varsity the night night we played (and she played very well, in fact). The injured goalie is expected back in a couple weeks.

That makes sense and I agree on the goalie not being punished. That is the right call to let her continue to play JV.

AV dad wrote:Apparently, one of the ineligible players used was the JV goalie, who is sitting out a transfer season. The varsity goalie went down with an injury, and Norwich put the ineligible goalie in to finish the game. Not an excuse, as he should know better, but doesn't look like an attempt to circumvent the rules, either.

My question is: How could the JV goalie used vs. NSP be ineligible due to the MSHSL transfer rule? It appears that she is a 9th grader and I didn't think this rule applied to incoming 9th graders.

Possibly she enrolled for high school somewhere else this fall and then transferred to ERHS during September or October of her 9th grade year? (which doesn't seem likely because it looks like she was also one of the JV goalies last year as an 8th grader, apparently enrolled at a feeder middle school)

Also, was there another ineligible player used? A couple posts seem to indicate that. Maybe the other situation is where the coach doesn't have as good of an excuse.

Maybe somebody close to East Ridge can weigh in here with the facts.

I don't know anything about other ineligible players, but I do know that the JV goalie is a 9th grader who enrolled at a private school this fall and returned to ER, and thus gave up a season of eligibility. I was not speculating.

AV dad wrote:I don't know anything about other ineligible players, but I do know that the JV goalie is a 9th grader who enrolled at a private school this fall and returned to ER, and thus gave up a season of eligibility. I was not speculating.

I hope this doesn't send this thread offtrack, but enrolling in a Private (or another school) doesn't cause any eligibility issues for an incoming 9th grader...what does, the minute the 9th grader starts a fall school sport or steps foot in the front door for the 1st day of school (which ever comes 1st). That is when she is enrolled and a student of the new school.

AV dad wrote:I don't know anything about other ineligible players, but I do know that the JV goalie is a 9th grader who enrolled at a private school this fall and returned to ER, and thus gave up a season of eligibility. I was not speculating.

Thanks for the info, that explains it (at least the goalie portion of it - not sure if there is another part to this situation?).

mnhcp wrote:

AV dad wrote:I don't know anything about other ineligible players, but I do know that the JV goalie is a 9th grader who enrolled at a private school this fall and returned to ER, and thus gave up a season of eligibility. I was not speculating.

I hope this doesn't send this thread offtrack, but enrolling in a Private (or another school) doesn't cause any eligibility issues for an incoming 9th grader...what does, the minute the 9th grader starts a fall school sport or steps foot in the front door for the 1st day of school (which ever comes 1st).

I could be wrong, but I believe it's the latter and then transferring which causes the varsity ineligibility. IMHO it does seem unfortunate to me that she'd be ineligible in this situation, where she transferred during her 9th grade year less than 2 months in - before hockey season even started (she might've had trouble adjusting to the new school). You'd think ERHS would've applied for an eligibility waiver if this was the actual scenario, especially since they only have 1 goalie rostered on the varsity. However, if she transferred just in the past couple weeks -- i.e. only after not making the private school's varsity hockey team -- then my opinion would likely be different as then it would appear she's transferring strictly for hockey reasons.

From what I was told, she left the private school for two reasons, there were going to be 7 goalies trying out. I don't think she felt she would be in the top four. Also she found out Eastridge was short on goaltenders. I think she may have left sometime right before Cptn. practice began.

Interesting update to ER story: Wes Walz has been named new head coach. Good luck to Wes.

AV dad wrote:Interesting update to ER story: Wes Walz has been named new head coach. Good luck to Wes.

Just for the remainder of this season?

I had a feeling that might happen since his daughter is on the team. Good luck to him and the program.

AV dad wrote:Interesting update to ER story: Wes Walz has been named new head coach. Good luck to Wes.

They "settled" for Wes Walz when they could have had the Wild's Yeo!!!

Quite a pair to draw from....good luck to ER it appears they are in good hands.

Both have daughters on the team.

The goalie apparently transferred from HM to East Ridge beause the regilious aspect was too far of a gap for her. While this is not traditionally the reason one leaves, I guess it happended. They probably should have investigated it more.

My contacts tell me she would have been in the top 4 goalies and would be in competition for the starting position for the following year, but the starting position was owned by the incumbent senior goal tender. I would suspect if the JV goal tender from East Ridge was at HM for hockey, she would have stayed at HM. Why would you leave HM if your focus was hockey.

For the game that created the dicussion thread, the JV goal tender completed the JV game, unsuited and was sitting with the fans and was not on the bench. It was only after the Varsity goal tender went down is when the JV goal tender was asked to suit up because of the injury. The 3rd goal tender was ineligible and did not have her goalie gear with. So it was either the varisty goal tender remained in the game injured, the JV goal tender plays, or have someone who has not played before enter.

Crazy situation to say the least and not the way to start the season.

I just hope that the team can put this behind them and move forward for the sake of the kids. It's good they have strong hockey people in the community to step in at times like this in Walz &/or Yeo. Best of luck to the kids, team, and community.

A parent that I work with who is friends with the faimly said another factor was the education and that East Ridge was better suited for someone going into medicine. I guess another thing the parents should have looked into before enrolling.