Minnesota Hockey - how can we help?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:21 pm

Elliot,

I am kind of a policy wonk. I'm on our local board, been coaching for years, grew up with the game, been pretty active. Yeah, when I see these proposals I try to see all sides and try to keep an open mind. The cross-ice mandate, for example, many people across the country hate it. Illinois and Michigan are still in all out revolt. I looked at it, looked at the research and the reasoning, I understand the reasons for it. I have been receptive to a lot of the changes that ADM has produced, so I am not just some old, stuck in his ways, fart.

I look at these latest proposals and my stomach starts to turn. They're fundamentally changing the game I love. My biggest worry is that they are sowing the seeds for out and out revolt and for more associations to flee to AAU where they have autonomy. I worry that the REAL hockey season will be in the spring and summer and that the traditional winter season will be something that people just endure. I worry that "the alternative choices" to association hockey will become bigger and bigger. I worry that by taking the actions they take, saying they want to improve the game, that they are actually going to destroy youth hockey in Minnesota and across the country.

People say that won't happen, I look at Illinois, Michigan, what is going on in the Junior ranks with the most recent squabble between the NAHL and USPHL. I see the entire Northeast, Michigan, and Illinois headed towards the AAU door.

The vast majority of people at your local Minnesota rinks know nothing about these most recent proposals, or anything that is going on the national scene for that matter. When the word comes down of these changes (if they happen) expect there to be a very vocal dissent. I see Minnesota going the way of the other areas I mentioned. The current leadership can try to hold it back, eventually the membership will get their way. That's the way these things work, you can only push so far before there is a backlash effect. You see that in our national politics today, and don't kid yourself, there is a TON of politics in youth hockey. The backlash will happen here too.

Eagles93
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:04 am

Post by Eagles93 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:07 pm

Eagles93 wrote: Another thing I would like to see is that all faceoffs be held at the 9 faceoff dots on the ice.
According to Proposal 97 in the Proposed Rule Changes, looks like they are approving faceoffs at the 9 dots. =D>

Section 8 guy
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:04 am

Post by Section 8 guy » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:12 am

Just an observation........I couldn't tell you the last time I heard anyone at the rink complain at all about there not being checking in PeeWees. I'm not saying everyone thinks that's the way it should be. Just saying I don't think a lot of people with kids that age that don't know anything different care at all. It seems to me like most people have adapted to the change and are just fine with it.

I also think kids are doing just fine in adapting to checking with Bantams being their first year of checking.

Taking checking out of Bantams......probably a different issue.

Another related but different observation......the Bantam AA level generally isn't as physical at it was a year ago. Not that I see all the games.....but from what I have seen there is noticeably less hitting than a year ago.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:33 pm

I will agree with the comment about Pee Wees adapting to the non-checking game. There doesn't seem to be many complaints about it. Part of that is that the people at that age group don't know any better as this way is the only way they've ever known. I look at it and notice the difference in Pee Wees coming into Bantams because that is the level I coach. Player development in that aspect of the game is being stunted due to the change, the players are being negatively effected they just don't know it.

As to outlawing checking in Bantams, let me throw this one out there. If this comes to pass then a player's first experience in checking will come at the High School level, in HS tryouts. Is that something we really want? Don't you think the quality of the High School game will be somewhat negatively effected? How about those freshman or sophomores that roll into High School tryouts and not only do they have to deal with the pressures of making their HS roster but they have to do so playing a style of game that is foreign to them. Does anybody think that might increase the number of roster "misses" a coach may make? Players will get cut because they have a hard time transitioning during that short tryout window, or coaches will take a player expecting them to make the transition and they won't be able to.

I can already see the proliferation of clinics, camps, and leagues that offer the checking game, for a fee, of course.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:49 pm

I have heard from nearly every bantam coach and a majority of the peewee coaches in D16 as well as association leaders.

100% of the responses are opposed to taking checking out of bantams.

100% of the responses are in favor of bringing checking back to peewees.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:51 pm

My proposal, then and now, is to allow defensive zone checking for squirts,
for peewees no neutral zone checking, and for bantams keep it as it is.

Up the penalty for charging.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Mandate beginning of the season off-ice and on-ice training on checking and the related penalties.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:53 pm

I am off to pack and leave for the metropolis.

If in the area, stop and say 'HI'.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:15 pm

Safe travels, Elliott!

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:10 pm

Bantam checking will stay

Icing when a man short will stay

old goalie85
Posts: 3695
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:37 am

Post by old goalie85 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:56 am

Thanks for all you do.

goldy313
Posts: 2961
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:56 pm

Post by goldy313 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:57 am

Pay the fees for first and second year referees. We are charging them too much for what the ROI is. We are or will run into too few refs for the games alloted.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:50 pm

goldy313 wrote:Pay the fees for first and second year referees. We are charging them too much for what the ROI is. We are or will run into too few refs for the games alloted.
Great idea.
I am sending it to the treasurer, P VP of gold/maroon and some directors today.

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:28 pm

It's been sent to people and discussion has already begun.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:56 pm

Bumping this thread for Elliot. USA Hockey's Annual Meeting was this weekend and there were several rule change proposals being considered. Anything new pass? I've Googled but haven't found a press release or news story about any changes.

jg2112
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:36 pm

Post by jg2112 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:50 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:Bumping this thread for Elliot. USA Hockey's Annual Meeting was this weekend and there were several rule change proposals being considered. Anything new pass? I've Googled but haven't found a press release or news story about any changes.
I've seen one online. At the youth levels (U14 and below) there will be no more "free" icing on the penalty kill. The team on the kill can no longer ice the puck, or it will result in a face-off in their own zone.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:25 pm

jg2112 wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:Bumping this thread for Elliot. USA Hockey's Annual Meeting was this weekend and there were several rule change proposals being considered. Anything new pass? I've Googled but haven't found a press release or news story about any changes.
I've seen one online. At the youth levels (U14 and below) there will be no more "free" icing on the penalty kill. The team on the kill can no longer ice the puck, or it will result in a face-off in their own zone.
Thinking about that, I can see where they are trying to go with this rule change. The goal is probably to foster creativity and increase scoring chances, but teams are still going to ice the puck. The refs will now stop the game for them so they can get a line change too.

Where this is going to be a real issue is in running clock games. A couple of icings and subsequent face-off stalls should be sufficient to kill off a penalty without there being any actual playing time.

I think this rule is going to kill the flow of the game and add even more play stoppages. Not in favor of fit. Then again, I don't like rule changes much.

The only rule changes I have really liked are getting rid of the red line for two line passes and the modified icing rules, which I think all of USA Hockey should adopt for all ages. I also think we should go back to delayed offsides at all levels and get rid of automatic offsides at the younger ages and tag-up offsides at the older ages. Just make all ages go to delayed offsides. That will aid in creativity and player development, especially when it comes to neutral zone play.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:33 pm

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:06 pm

I have mixed feelings about touch up offsides at the lower level (squirt and pee wee) . On one hand it teaches kids to always hustle..On the other hand, a whistle is sometimes needed so the kids can change lines.

If they did incorporate touch up offsides to keep the game moving, I would love to see them eliminate icing as well (even when it's 5 on 5). This to could teach kids the importance of puck possession and could possibly increase the length of a period from 12 minutes to say 15. Especially at the squirt level, most icing is the cause of a stretch pass that didn't work out. So I say keep the kids hustling and the play moving by having no icing called.

Again my only concern here is sometimes a whistle is needed to stop play and change lines otherwise I like less whistles at this level of play

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:59 pm

jg2112 wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:Bumping this thread for Elliot. USA Hockey's Annual Meeting was this weekend and there were several rule change proposals being considered. Anything new pass? I've Googled but haven't found a press release or news story about any changes.
I've seen one online. At the youth levels (U14 and below) there will be no more "free" icing on the penalty kill. The team on the kill can no longer ice the puck, or it will result in a face-off in their own zone.
This is true. It passed.
MH delegation voted against it, but 70 some voting on it passed without too much trouble.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:19 pm

Great (sarcasm). Any other fundamental (to the game) rule changes we can look forward to? Did they also pass the rule getting rid of calling the divisions Mite, Squirt, Pee Wee, Bantam, and Midgets?

elliott70
Posts: 11996
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:20 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:Great (sarcasm). Any other fundamental (to the game) rule changes we can look forward to? Did they also pass the rule getting rid of calling the divisions Mite, Squirt, Pee Wee, Bantam, and Midgets?
Yes that passed but MH will retain the division names.

The district directors will meet Saturday morning June 24 to discuss (among other things) the icing rule.
It is an open committee meeting so all can attend. Not sure of the time but assuming 8am. At the Marriot west off 394 - 169.
Please attend if you wish to voice an opinion.

Post Reply