Jack Jablonski Not allowed On Ice Covered On Yahoo

MTStringer · Post by **MTStringer** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:43 pm

I thought this was an interesting read getting some national coverage-

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschoo ... 18582.html

northern_guy · Post by **northern_guy** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:21 pm

i would love to see this decision makers name published, and i would like to see this decision cost them their job. this is a situation in which a bad decision in which they should be fired over. how do you not consult with a lot of other people before you reach this conclusion....they only consulted with an insurance company, we all know they dont give two PLEASE BAN ME about anyone personally...this memory to last a lifetime for many is now just a thought....read the reactions of readers on yahoo, they heard the reasons why..and people do not agree with it...99.9% of people. how can you fudge up a decision like this that bad.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:46 pm

The whole thing is a total joke. MSHSL dropped the ball big time.

PuckRanger · Post by **PuckRanger** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:58 pm

Sats81 wrote:MSHSL dropped the ball big time.

Big shocker there. They rarely get it right.

Tenoverpar · Post by **Tenoverpar** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:30 pm

Absolutely the most horrible decision in history. WHoever made the call will end up with there name published eventually and will eat crow for eaternity because of it.

This story of Jablonski and the winning of the state championship is absolutely going to be a major motion picture drama in about 5 years. No doubt about it. And the climatic scene in the movie will actually be a total tear jerker when they don't let him on the ice and when Horton is in the locker room alone punching the wall.

Oldtimehockeyguy23 · Post by **Oldtimehockeyguy23** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:59 pm

Tenoverpar wrote:Absolutely the most horrible decision in history. WHoever made the call will end up with there name published eventually and will eat crow for eaternity because of it.

This story of Jablonski and the winning of the state championship is absolutely going to be a major motion picture drama in about 5 years. No doubt about it. And the climatic scene in the movie will actually be a total tear jerker when they don't let him on the ice and when Horton is in the locker room alone punching the wall.

First of all Horton deserved what he got. Second of all the MSHSL was in a tough spot in my opinion and I don't think we should judge their decision so harshly. I don't know what the correct move would have been but I'm saying their decision wasn't as easy as you people make it out to be.

xy · Post by xy » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:21 pm

Tenoverpar wrote:Absolutely the most horrible decision in history.

I agree that they made a mistake, but let's not lose all perspective here. My initial fear was that somebody, on the day of the game, simply said "we have a rule that only team members can go out, and he's not on the team, so no"; that would have been ridiculous. The subsequent disclosure that they thought about it ahead of time, and had insurance and liability concerns in mind, makes it a little more understandable; I still think it was the wrong decision, but the high school league isn't rolling in money and you can see how someone might hear warnings from their insurer and decide to err on the side of caution. Like so much that has happened in the wake of this injury, people were operating on a blank slate, and didn't always know exactly how to react. A bad decision, yes, but I don't know that it's worth tarring and feathering someone and ending his career.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:33 pm

In case you missed it this was the subject of a Michael Rand blog entry yesterday:

MSHSL Executive Director Dave Stead expanded on that Monday, issuing this statement:

"In order to make sure the $2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk, the League's insurance carrier was contacted. I was informed that if an accident of any type would have occurred, the insurance claim may well have been jeopardized."

puckhead58 · Post by **puckhead58** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:44 pm

Not to be an ogre or anything, but what's wrong with letting these kids enjoy the limelight on their own for the on ice celebration (and some private time with Jabs backstage)? While tragic and inspirational.....it was nice to see them celebrate their victory and have our complete attention, very little of which they have been able to do this year. Just my two cents.

almostashappy · Post by **almostashappy** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:48 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:In case you missed it this was the subject of a Michael Rand blog entry yesterday:

MSHSL Executive Director Dave Stead expanded on that Monday, issuing this statement:

"In order to make sure the $2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk, the League's insurance carrier was contacted. I was informed that if an accident of any type would have occurred, the insurance claim may well have been jeopardized."

Any reason offered by MSHSL has to pass "The Mrs. Bitzer test."

The first trophy awarded during Saturday night's ceremony was the Herb Brooks Foundation award that went to Mike Bitzer from Moorhead. He came out on the ice in his street clothes (having played in the 3rd place game earlier that night), and I read someplace that he was accompanied by his family.

Nice moment, and great that he was able to share that with his family. But the fact remains that Mike's mom was not on Moorhead's 20-man roster. Mrs. Bitzer wasn't a MSHSL suit, or a cameraman eligible for workman's comp if she slipped on the ice. She had no official reason for being out there.

So if it was okay for her to enjoy that moment, why couldn't Jabs?

hockey59 · Post by **hockey59** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:32 pm

almostashappy wrote:
MNHockeyFan wrote:In case you missed it this was the subject of a Michael Rand blog entry yesterday:

MSHSL Executive Director Dave Stead expanded on that Monday, issuing this statement:

"In order to make sure the $2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk, the League's insurance carrier was contacted. I was informed that if an accident of any type would have occurred, the insurance claim may well have been jeopardized."
Any reason offered by MSHSL has to pass "The Mrs. Bitzer test."

The first trophy awarded during Saturday night's ceremony was the Herb Brooks Foundation award that went to Mike Bitzer from Moorhead. He came out on the ice in his street clothes (having played in the 3rd place game earlier that night), and I read someplace that he was accompanied by his family.

Nice moment, and great that he was able to share that with his family. But the fact remains that Mike's mom was not on Moorhead's 20-man roster. Mrs. Bitzer wasn't a MSHSL suit, or a cameraman eligible for workman's comp if she slipped on the ice. She had no official reason for being out there.

So if it was okay for her to enjoy that moment, why couldn't Jabs?

The only thing I don't understand is why the "$2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk" (and maybe it was but nobody bothered to worry about it)when Jabs went on the ice following the Section 6aa Championship game...in this case he even got in line for the hand shakes with the Minnetonka players...which was really cool.
Because of this precedent being set...many of us who also attended the AA Ship GAME at XCEL...naturally expected the same thing to happen following the title game....would have been a great moment.

Whywere these 2 events handled in an inconsisent manner...curious if the MSHSL commented on that?...because it does not seem logical that the Insurance policy apples only to the State Tounament....as I would think it applies to all MSHSL games, both Varsity and JV games?

PuckU126 · Post by **PuckU126** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:37 pm

It would've been great to see Jack out there with his team; however, I can understand why the league didn't allow it. (Liability issues)

He met with the team in the locker room, where they celebrated. Everyone was happy. The End.

PuckRanger · Post by **PuckRanger** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:40 pm

PuckU126 wrote:Everyone was happy. The End.

Obviously not or this thread would not exist, nor that article ever written.

PuckU126 · Post by **PuckU126** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:44 pm

PuckRanger wrote:
PuckU126 wrote:Everyone was happy. The End.

Obviously not or this thread would not exist, nor that article ever written.

Eh..

People complain about anything these days.

Especially Yahoo! writers...

I haven't seen his teammates scream bloody murder about it.

Plus, that was last Saturday the 10th; its the 13th now. Its over with. Hence: The End.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:11 pm

hockey59 wrote:The only thing I don't understand is why the "$2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk" (and maybe it was but nobody bothered to worry about it)when Jabs went on the ice following the Section 6aa Championship game...in this case he even got in line for the hand shakes with the Minnetonka players...which was really cool.

Because of this precedent being set...many of us who also attended the AA Ship GAME at XCEL...naturally expected the same thing to happen following the title game....would have been a great moment.

Whywere these 2 events handled in an inconsisent manner...curious if the MSHSL commented on that?...because it does not seem logical that the Insurance policy apples only to the State Tounament....as I would think it applies to all MSHSL games, both Varsity and JV games?

I don't know the answer. My speculation is that MSHSL probably only runs the state tournament. They might sanction the Section playoffs that lead into it, but maybe those are run by each Section and are their responsibility.

hockey59 · Post by **hockey59** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:16 pm

I'd just like to know why it was OK for Jabs to be on the ice following the 6AA game and not the AA Title game at XCEL?...HOW CAN ONE SITUATON involve a liability insurance issue...and not the other?

I doubt (most) people would even be questioning this if he had not been alllowed on the ice at Mariucci

And PUCK...please feel free NOT to comment on this during the next few minutes...

since its already the 13th of March

the HS season has been over for such a LOOONG time...and you're last 2 posts were sooo insightfull.

hockey59 · Post by **hockey59** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:21 pm

O-townClown wrote:
hockey59 wrote:The only thing I don't understand is why the "$2 million Lifetime Catastrophic Insurance policy the League purchases for each athlete was not at risk" (and maybe it was but nobody bothered to worry about it)when Jabs went on the ice following the Section 6aa Championship game...in this case he even got in line for the hand shakes with the Minnetonka players...which was really cool.

Because of this precedent being set...many of us who also attended the AA Ship GAME at XCEL...naturally expected the same thing to happen following the title game....would have been a great moment.

Whywere these 2 events handled in an inconsisent manner...curious if the MSHSL commented on that?...because it does not seem logical that the Insurance policy apples only to the State Tounament....as I would think it applies to all MSHSL games, both Varsity and JV games?
I don't know the answer. My speculation is that MSHSL probably only runs the state tournament. They might sanction the Section playoffs that lead into it, but maybe those are run by each Section and are their responsibility.

OTown...if that turns out to be the correct answer...then at least I'd understand the inconsistent treatment (better).

PuckU126 · Post by **PuckU126** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:28 pm

hockey59 wrote:And PUCK...please feel free NOT to comment on this during the next few minutes... since its already the 13th of March the HS season has been over for such a LOOONG time...and you're last 2 posts were sooo insightfull.

Take it easy. Let's not get off topic here and have this thread locked.

I was merely stating that this event passed. That's all.

The League obviously had its reasons; however, no one has given a definitive answer; only speculation. My opinion, it was to prevent liability issues.

Please, continue to give us your insights, hockey.

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:39 pm

Do you think that maybe the Jabs family did not want to take away the spotlight that was BSM winning the whole thing?

I waited to see him also, but was shut out (bad pun) But you know, the sun came up on Sunday and I was alive and well.

Let BSM enjoy the momoent with their teammate....

headsup · Post by **headsup** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:44 pm

A couple points:
1) Horton ejected, rightfully and kept away from the ceremony... separate topic.
2) BSM knew the rules of the tournament. If they wanted a player to participate in the ceremony they simply could have rostered him. They had a choice to either roster a player who was proclaimed to be their focus of inspiration, or a player who didn't log much ice time anyway. They even could have rostered him as a manager or team rep.

After winning their section, knowing the rules - how many of us wondered if BSM would give an honorary roster spot or team position to the player in question? I know I did. Seemed like a slam dunk. Maybe there's more I don't know, but given Pauly's staements vs MSHSL's statements... who really knows?

Another interesting topic:
Wonder how much the "insurance liability" influenced the quick action and rule changes for the season? USA hockey also carries insurance on players and has significant influence on "situations" that could result in a claim.

seek & destroy · Post by **seek & destroy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:38 am

headsup wrote:A couple points:
1) Horton ejected, rightfully and kept away from the ceremony... separate topic.
2) BSM knew the rules of the tournament. If they wanted a player to participate in the ceremony they simply could have rostered him. They had a choice to either roster a player who was proclaimed to be their focus of inspiration, or a player who didn't log much ice time anyway. They even could have rostered him as a manager or team rep.

After winning their section, knowing the rules - how many of us wondered if BSM would give an honorary roster spot or team position to the player in question? I know I did. Seemed like a slam dunk. Maybe there's more I don't know, but given Pauly's staements vs MSHSL's statements... who really knows?

Another interesting topic:
Wonder how much the "insurance liability" influenced the quick action and rule changes for the season? USA hockey also carries insurance on players and has significant influence on "situations" that could result in a claim.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. There are a number of ways that they could have included Jabs in the post game celebration:

1) Rostering him would have allowed him access to the ice - a number of injured players have been involved in the on-ice celebration in the past. I can only guess that they had other players who they felt deserved a roster spot so they gave it to them...nothing wrong with that.

2) There are several doors/gates to the rink where they could have pre-arranged a way for Jabs to get to that would have allowed the team to take a photo with him without him coming on the actual ice surface.

3) The players could have done some sort of salute to him where he was seated. Plenty of cameras were focusing on him and it would have been easy to do something given the situation.

Superstitions make it tough for a team to do too much planning for how they want to do their post game celebration. I think the players deserved their moment and Jabs going to the locker room for a private celebration is more than appropriate. The team recently took time at another locaiton to get their picture on ice with Jabs which is also a nice gesture.

I think the real reason for everyone being upset about how it was handled is that the audience - in the arena and on TV - wanted that 'moment'. Everyone has been heavily invested in the story of Jabs and they wanted a conclusion to the story. The ideal conclusion was for BSM to WIN the State tourney and then the on-ice celebration with Jabs. People feel cheated much the same way people feel cheated at the end of a good movie when they don't like how the director chose to conclude the story.

For what it is worth, if/when this is made into a movie, Hollywood will change the 'real life' ending and have him on the ice with the team...they don't care about insurance issues.

Weekend_Warrior · Post by **Weekend_Warrior** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 pm

Well... the assistant coach from Hill Murray, who is also in a wheelchair, wasn't allowed on the ice either. That's why the one player skated his medal over to him on the bench.

Just sayin... like any other part of the game and Tournament - a rule is a rule

PuckU126 · Post by **PuckU126** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:33 pm

Weekend_Warrior wrote:Well... the assistant coach from Hill Murray, who is also in a wheelchair, wasn't allowed on the ice either. That's why the one player skated his medal over to him on the bench.

Just sayin... like any other part of the game and Tournament - a rule is a rule

Pat Schafhauser

That rule must have changed since 2008...

hockey59 · Post by **hockey59** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:36 pm

Great take on this Seek & Destroy

Many in attendence were disappointed because Jabs was allowed on the ice at Mariuccu...and this would have made for a historic celebration and conclusion to the AA tourney.

MSHSL screwed up...it happens (unfortuately)...and I agree...if Hollywood makes a movie in 5 years..they'll change the ending.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:25 pm

Total BS. Look at the post game celebration and there were players not on the 20 man roster on the ice. They were players who had some varsity experience, but had not suited up for awhile. They had their BSM hockey jackets on. In my opinion, they had every right to be there as well as Jabs.

Duke also got on the ice afterwards. Very nice thing to do on HMs part.

Stop using insurance as an excuse for bad decisions.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Jack Jablonski Not allowed On Ice Covered On Yahoo

Jack Jablonski Not allowed On Ice Covered On Yahoo

a

Re: a

Re: a