Are Off Ice Training Facilities Legal During the Season?

[muckandgrind]

"Off ice" and "on ice" are not considered the same when it comes to who is allowed to be included.

muckandgrind, I am still not convinced! You haven't explained why there is a difference in that a person who is not certified and not the rostered coach/"guy in charge" is not allowed on the ice, while a person who is not certified and not the rostered coach/"guy in charge" is allowed to run off ice training. Is it because one has a label of "Off Ice Instructor" or is it because one is run on ice and the other is not. As always I will wait for your insightful/helpful and positive response!

I'm not here to convince you...just telling you what I know, and what I've read. Read it for yourself. A instructor at Acceleration Minnesota is not a rostered coach and does not have to be a rostered coach when a team shows up for treadmill or plyometric training. If you don't believe me, contact your District Risk Manager and ask them. They will tell you.

I have the USA Hockey Handbook sitting right here in front of me, and I can't find any wording that would prohibit teams from using FHIT or AM or any other off-site training. The only mention of something that even comes close to discussing this topic that I can find is on page 24 of the USA Hockey Insurance Handbook:

21. Are clinics, events. fund-raising activities, and other special situations covered by USA Hockey’s
policy? USA Hockey has a policy which it extends to protect its membership, including the
sanctioned events and activities of our member teams, leagues and associations. Clinics, events,
fundraisers and other situations MAY be covered by the USA Hockey policy. Since we can’t list every
type of situation, it’s always best to check with your District Risk Manager (or their Associate Risk
Manager), or USA Hockey’s Insurance Coordinator to check on your group’s situation BEFORE it
takes place. Proper risk management strengthens our insurance.

Do you think you've uncovered something that no one else had considered? Do you think that by asking these questions, you will get AM, FHIT and all the others shut down or barred from working with associations? Believe me, if teams were violating USA and MN Hockey by training at these sites, these teams wouldn't be doing it.

You attempt at sarcasm is a weak one. I'm not the one being "negative". You are the one who has an axe to grind with FHIT and others, and I'm just wondering what your problem is?

[elliott70]

elliot70, Thanks for the info! As a parent/coach/concerned citizen what course of action should be taken if an association requires the use of one of these organizations that is in violation of the MH rules?

That question contains a lot of ifs.
But if a team or association is having some type of activity it is governed and the people involved need to follow the rules. As a participant that wnats to follow the rules, yo should question the coach or assn board member with some responsibility to be sure the use is okay. Teh best thing to do is contact the District Director and get the okay from the director. That is the biggest job of the DD, educate teh local assn to read the handbook and then call the DD when there is something in questio.
The DD then can help teh local assn work it so it falls within the tules.

[Leave It To Beaver]

Thanks elliot70!!!

[InigoMontoya]

Elliot, it seems there is room for DD interpretation. With 12 different DDs, I'd assume you may get a different answer depending on which district you are in. My question: what if the DD is wrong? No offense, but I can't imagine that USA Hockey will feel like it is bound by a phone call you had with a squirt coach.

[muckandgrind]

Elliot, it seems there is room for DD interpretation. With 12 different DDs, I'd assume you may get a different answer depending on which district you are in. My question: what if the DD is wrong? No offense, but I can't imagine that USA Hockey will feel like it is bound by a phone call you had with a squirt coach.

There is no language anywhere that says teams can't train offsite. But there IS language that says if you are in doubt, contact your District Risk Manager. Now, I'm not sure if the Risk Manager is the same as the District Director (maybe Elliot70 can help out there), but the language basically says that if your Risk Manager gives you the 'OK', than you should be covered by USA Hockey.

[elliott70]

Elliot, it seems there is room for DD interpretation. With 12 different DDs, I'd assume you may get a different answer depending on which district you are in. My question: what if the DD is wrong? No offense, but I can't imagine that USA Hockey will feel like it is bound by a phone call you had with a squirt coach.

If a DD says NO, then it can be appealed.
If a DD says YES, then USAH is bound by their decision.

[Leave It To Beaver]

That question contains a lot of ifs.

Let me take a few of the ifs out and I'll give you a "hypothetical" scenario.

A couple of weeks before the season starts the association president and a couple of "A" level coaches decide, on behalf of the association, to commit at least four teams to 32 sessions each of off ice training at one of these organizations. The coaches of the four teams place these training sessions on the team calendar and make it manditory for all members of the team to participate. The team manager bills each member, whether they participate or not, becuase it is a team requirement. A couple of the instructors at this facility are certified, but not all and this organization does not require background checks for its employees. A couple of the team coaches are present for most of the training sessions, but the others are not. The off ice instructors are in charge of each training session and work the players on flexibility, plyos, core exercises, foot speed-power-quickness, weight training, skating, passing, shooting and stickhandling. (Instructors do not wear helmets).

Given this "hypothetical" scenario let me know if you think this would be legal, questionable or not legal.

[muckandgrind]

That question contains a lot of ifs.

Let me take a few of the ifs out and I'll give you a "hypothetical" scenario.

A couple of weeks before the season starts the association president and a couple of "A" level coaches decide, on behalf of the association, to commit at least four teams to 32 sessions each of off ice training at one of these organizations. The coaches of the four teams place these training sessions on the team calendar and make it manditory for all members of the team to participate. The team manager bills each member, whether they participate or not, becuase it is a team requirement. A couple of the instructors at this facility are certified, but not all and this organization does not require background checks for its employees. A couple of the team coaches are present for most of the training sessions, but the others are not. The off ice instructors are in charge of each training session and work the players on flexibility, plyos, core exercises, foot speed-power-quickness, weight training, skating, passing, shooting and stickhandling. (Instructors do not wear helmets).

Given this "hypothetical" scenario let me know if you think this would be legal, questionable or not legal.

There's no language in the USA Hockey handbook that makes this "illegal", but as Elliot70 said, call your DD and see if he gives this his blessing. Sounds like your real beef is with your association for making this mandatory and forcing you to pay for it, not whether or not it's "legal" by USA Hockey standards....., show up to the next board meeting and sound off.

[Leave It To Beaver]

There's no language in the USA Hockey handbook that makes this "illegal", but as Elliot70 said, call your DD and see if he gives this his blessing. Sounds like your real beef is with your association for making this mandatory and forcing you to pay for it, not whether or not it's "legal" by USA Hockey standards....., show up to the next board meeting and sound off.

Money is not the issue. What I was trying to do with this "hypothetial" scenario was to cover all the points from my first post. With the coaches making the decission to participate, putting it on the team calendar and having to pay whether the player was there or not proves that it is a required team function. With it being a required team function then any person working/in charge of that team must be rostered, certified, have a background check and wear a helmet. The scenario I gave none of the forementioned are true and I had the instructors running the show. So, if that was the case then would it OK, Questionable or not.

[muckandgrind]

There's no language in the USA Hockey handbook that makes this "illegal", but as Elliot70 said, call your DD and see if he gives this his blessing. Sounds like your real beef is with your association for making this mandatory and forcing you to pay for it, not whether or not it's "legal" by USA Hockey standards....., show up to the next board meeting and sound off.

Money is not the issue. What I was trying to do with this "hypothetial" scenario was to cover all the points from my first post. With the coaches making the decission to participate, putting it on the team calendar and having to pay whether the player was there or not proves that it is a required team function. With it being a required team function then any person working/in charge of that team must be rostered, certified, have a background check and wear a helmet. The scenario I gave none of the forementioned are true and I had the instructors running the show. So, if that was the case then would it OK, Questionable or not.

Where are you getting this information? I've looked through the USA Hockey Handbook cover to cover and can't find any language saying those are requirements...

Both of my son's are required to attend mandatory "team functions" that include fundraising activities such as serving breakfast. In your world, the manager of the restaurant instructing the boys on how to fill beverages would need to be rostered, certified, and wear a helmet!!!

[buttend]

That question contains a lot of ifs.

Let me take a few of the ifs out and I'll give you a "hypothetical" scenario.

A couple of weeks before the season starts the association president and a couple of "A" level coaches decide, on behalf of the association, to commit at least four teams to 32 sessions each of off ice training at one of these organizations. The coaches of the four teams place these training sessions on the team calendar and make it manditory for all members of the team to participate. The team manager bills each member, whether they participate or not, becuase it is a team requirement. A couple of the instructors at this facility are certified, but not all and this organization does not require background checks for its employees. A couple of the team coaches are present for most of the training sessions, but the others are not. The off ice instructors are in charge of each training session and work the players on flexibility, plyos, core exercises, foot speed-power-quickness, weight training, skating, passing, shooting and stickhandling. (Instructors do not wear helmets).

Given this "hypothetical" scenario let me know if you think this would be legal, questionable or not legal.

Its prefectly legal and I'll bet your Association signed a contract for those services that detailed out rates, terms and liabilities. These businesses and not part of or affilliated w/ USA Hockey or Minnesota Hockey therefore they are not subject to their bylaws or policies. Many of these businesses provide programs, training, space, equipment, coaching, supervision, etc for a variety of sports and athletes.

HDC in Lakeville has contracts w/ many associations including Lakeville
Exceed Hockey in Prior Lake has contract w/ Prior Lake and other Associations.
Acceleration Locations has contracts w/ most Metro Associations

I'm sure ther are many more examples...

[InigoMontoya]

If The Beave's point was to get feedback regarding (or to complain about) private off-ice (or on-ice) training centers, then it certainly would have been more forthright to express that initially. However, this thread has brought up a couple interesting questions. Why would USAH and MNH go through the expensive and logistically painstaking process of certifying, registering, rostering, and background checking coaches, board members, and even team managers, only to have no objection to turning the kids over to a group of strangers? Although we want to cheer, and in the case of a benevolent dictator rightfully so, flexibility in the enforcement of policies & procedures, rules, by-laws, etc., what safeguards are in place to protect against a leadership that may not have the best interest of the kids in mind when making decisions?

[muckandgrind]

If The Beave's point was to get feedback regarding (or to complain about) private off-ice (or on-ice) training centers, then it certainly would have been more forthright to express that initially. However, this thread has brought up a couple interesting questions. Why would USAH and MNH go through the expensive and logistically painstaking process of certifying, registering, rostering, and background checking coaches, board members, and even team managers, only to have no objection to turning the kids over to a group of strangers? Although we want to cheer, and in the case of a benevolent dictator rightfully so, flexibility in the enforcement of policies & procedures, rules, by-laws, etc., what safeguards are in place to protect against a leadership that may not have the best interest of the kids in mind when making decisions?

Association Board elections.

[JoltDelivered]

Heck - I'll go one step further. There is an association in district 2 that has brought Acceleration MN right into their rink. There is a skating treadmill and plyo area in the rink all run but an AM employee.

And yes, most teams if not all (including mites) REQUIRE the utilization of the training facilty during the winter hockey season for their players.

I think these opportunites are unique and well received. Or should we shut them down for "insurance" reasons?

[InigoMontoya]

When do they hold the District, MN, and USAH elections?

I appreciate the throw the bums out argument; it is never that simple. The horns and tail are generally kept under wraps, a toothy grin and twinkling eye accompanied by a laurel and hearty handshake in their stead. Style over substance and a leg up to a kid in his foresome, until the wind eventually leaves the sails of those who try for something better and they take their place in line with the brave but trampled hearts of those who came before them whispering the head to not make waves lest your own kid be washed overboard.

[Nobodyonya]

That question contains a lot of ifs.

Let me take a few of the ifs out and I'll give you a "hypothetical" scenario.

A couple of weeks before the season starts the association president and a couple of "A" level coaches decide, on behalf of the association, to commit at least four teams to 32 sessions each of off ice training at one of these organizations. The coaches of the four teams place these training sessions on the team calendar and make it manditory for all members of the team to participate. The team manager bills each member, whether they participate or not, becuase it is a team requirement. A couple of the instructors at this facility are certified, but not all and this organization does not require background checks for its employees. A couple of the team coaches are present for most of the training sessions, but the others are not. The off ice instructors are in charge of each training session and work the players on flexibility, plyos, core exercises, foot speed-power-quickness, weight training, skating, passing, shooting and stickhandling. (Instructors do not wear helmets).

Given this "hypothetical" scenario let me know if you think this would be legal, questionable or not legal.

Beaver....This "hypothetical" situation you are characterizing reflects to me that you "actually" experienced this within your Association this past winter. I am assuming you did bring this to the "Board" already and was not justified with the outcome. Have you contacted your DD? If so, what was there response? If not, why not? Like Muck and Grind stated contact your DD and get to the bottom of this as you do have valid points. It will be interesting to hear what the DD's response is to this topic. Please let us know as this is not only happening within your Association

[elliott70]

Heck - I'll go one step further. There is an association in district 2 that has brought Acceleration MN right into their rink. There is a skating treadmill and plyo area in the rink all run but an AM employee.

And yes, most teams if not all (including mites) REQUIRE the utilization of the training facilty during the winter hockey season for their players.

I think these opportunites are unique and well received. Or should we shut them down for "insurance" reasons?

This activity is fine, but those providing this service (direct contact with kids) need to go through the background check. It is not an insurance issue, but a child protection issue.
If they are going on the ice then it is a different animal.

[elliott70]

When do they hold the District, MN, and USAH elections?

I appreciate the throw the bums out argument; it is never that simple. The horns and tail are generally kept under wraps, a toothy grin and twinkling eye accompanied by a laurel and hearty handshake in their stead. Style over substance and a leg up to a kid in his foresome, until the wind eventually leaves the sails of those who try for something better and they take their place in line with the brave but trampled hearts of those who came before them whispering the head to not make waves lest your own kid be washed overboard.

Districts generally hold elections in the spring (May meeting). The district director term is 3 years.
D16 director is up for election this year. Other spots are based on district policy, but bottom line DD has the power and is the recognized individual by USAH and MH.
In D16 we only elect teh DD and he chooses teh other positions including ACE, RIC, CIC, TD, secretary etc...
Other directors have that power also, but may chose to have elections.

Minnesota Hockey has elections at their April meeting. See the MH web page for what spots are being elected this year and how to nominate.

USAH is more complex. MH elects delegates in the spring as their terms expires.

[troogracefan]

I truly believe that associations outsource some of their training programs because these programs are set up to handle larger groups and have instructors that have had success in that particular sport. I'm sure the association Mr. Beaver is struggling with had no bad intentions and was only trying to do what was best for their players as a whole. Is there a perfect way to help kids get better, none of us have that answer except some of us believe that only their way is the best. In sports, especially in hockey, the parents do not always have the training expertise that Mr. Beaver has and really count on their associations to help try and make their players develop as better players and better kids. We all know that you cannot and will not always please every parent no matter what decision you make as a coach or as an association.
Mr. Beaver can sit in front of the computer all he wants and try and discredit his association but he will find the same issues in all associations. There has to be some validity to these programs or otherwise they would not survive, plus most associations want help because there is only so much time in the day. I want to believe that there has to be more important things to worry about when it comes to youth hockey. I'm sure Mr. Beaver is one heck of a guy but needs to relax a bit on his onslaught of drilling people that have good intentions. He has options: move his kids to an association that believes in "exclusive individualism"training techniques or take the private route and get out of association sports period. I truly wish him luck no matter his decision.

[FrooTyeagledad2b]

There's no language in the USA Hockey handbook that makes this "illegal", but as Elliot70 said, call your DD and see if he gives this his blessing. Sounds like your real beef is with your association for making this mandatory and forcing you to pay for it, not whether or not it's "legal" by USA Hockey standards....., show up to the next board meeting and sound off.

Money is not the issue. What I was trying to do with this "hypothetial" scenario was to cover all the points from my first post. With the coaches making the decission to participate, putting it on the team calendar and having to pay whether the player was there or not proves that it is a required team function. With it being a required team function then any person working/in charge of that team must be rostered, certified, have a background check and wear a helmet. The scenario I gave none of the forementioned are true and I had the instructors running the show. So, if that was the case then would it OK, Questionable or not.

Beave...First of all use spell check even though you are a teacher (does Phy. Ed. count?) How can you say this is a "hypothetical" situation when this actually did transpire within your D10 Association? Both you and wife did attend a "Board" meeting to discuss the issue at hand, but to no avail. Money was the issue concerning you not that you couldn't afford it, but given the circumstances this was not in the best interest of your "2" children involved. You are well aware that the Board relies solely on what is best for the Association and not 1 particular individual in providing development for the entire group. You were intrigued to take this further because you were going to billed for this whether or not your children participated. Knowing this you had to revert to other resources to complain about the training program. When you were the Youth Coach within the Association you were highly transparent on taking any criticism or discuss any issues with parents. Did you ever consider taking parents concerns when you were the Coach? Why would you think this would be any different? This program is not suited for everyone (like other programs), but the facility has everything a player would need to develop there skills if they choose to do so. The instructors actually work on players weaknesses and at the same time combining repetitive training drills to retain the skill they already have. You are very knowledgeable at the sport, but the Association was trying to find a better avenue to develop the players. If, you don't experiment things go stale. I would much rather have my son/daughter participate in a program like this than a "individualized, selfish" summer camp that "was" available within. Hopefully, everything will work out for you....Good Luck

[FrooTyeagledad2b]

That question contains a lot of ifs.

Let me take a few of the ifs out and I'll give you a "hypothetical" scenario.

A couple of weeks before the season starts the association president and a couple of "A" level coaches decide, on behalf of the association, to commit at least four teams to 32 sessions each of off ice training at one of these organizations. The coaches of the four teams place these training sessions on the team calendar and make it manditory for all members of the team to participate. The team manager bills each member, whether they participate or not, becuase it is a team requirement. A couple of the instructors at this facility are certified, but not all and this organization does not require background checks for its employees. A couple of the team coaches are present for most of the training sessions, but the others are not. The off ice instructors are in charge of each training session and work the players on flexibility, plyos, core exercises, foot speed-power-quickness, weight training, skating, passing, shooting and stickhandling. (Instructors do not wear helmets).

Given this "hypothetical" scenario let me know if you think this would be legal, questionable or not legal.

Beaver....This "hypothetical" situation you are characterizing reflects to me that you "actually" experienced this within your Association this past winter. I am assuming you did bring this to the "Board" already and was not justified with the outcome. Have you contacted your DD? If so, what was there response? If not, why not? Like Muck and Grind stated contact your DD and get to the bottom of this as you do have valid points. It will be interesting to hear what the DD's response is to this topic. Please let us know as this is not only happening within your Association

Hey Beave....What did you find out after all your research? Was the Association within the guidelines?

[hiptzech]

There's no language in the USA Hockey handbook that makes this "illegal", but as Elliot70 said, call your DD and see if he gives this his blessing. Sounds like your real beef is with your association for making this mandatory and forcing you to pay for it, not whether or not it's "legal" by USA Hockey standards....., show up to the next board meeting and sound off.

Money is not the issue. What I was trying to do with this "hypothetial" scenario was to cover all the points from my first post. With the coaches making the decission to participate, putting it on the team calendar and having to pay whether the player was there or not proves that it is a required team function. With it being a required team function then any person working/in charge of that team must be rostered, certified, have a background check and wear a helmet. The scenario I gave none of the forementioned are true and I had the instructors running the show. So, if that was the case then would it OK, Questionable or not.

Beave...First of all use spell check even though you are a teacher (does Phy. Ed. count?) How can you say this is a "hypothetical" situation when this actually did transpire within your D10 Association? Both you and wife did attend a "Board" meeting to discuss the issue at hand, but to no avail. Money was the issue concerning you not that you couldn't afford it, but given the circumstances this was not in the best interest of your "2" children involved. You are well aware that the Board relies solely on what is best for the Association and not 1 particular individual in providing development for the entire group. You were intrigued to take this further because you were going to billed for this whether or not your children participated. Knowing this you had to revert to other resources to complain about the training program. When you were the Youth Coach within the Association you were highly transparent on taking any criticism or discuss any issues with parents. Did you ever consider taking parents concerns when you were the Coach? Why would you think this would be any different? This program is not suited for everyone (like other programs), but the facility has everything a player would need to develop there skills if they choose to do so. The instructors actually work on players weaknesses and at the same time combining repetitive training drills to retain the skill they already have. You are very knowledgeable at the sport, but the Association was trying to find a better avenue to develop the players. If, you don't experiment things go stale. I would much rather have my son/daughter participate in a program like this than a "individualized, selfish" summer camp that "was" available within. Hopefully, everything will work out for you....Good Luck

Dude....spell check, are you kidding me? Spell check/grammar check yourself...Welcome to the bored....