New participation rule

Doglover · Post by **Doglover** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:01 pm

Wow, I find myself in complete agreement with Hockeydad41!

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:01 pm

They do, go play for Bernie or if it's that big of a deal move. Why should my tax dollars go to support your kid leaching off my community facilities? This isn't school where we as a society benefit by educating every kid, this is an extra curricular activity with no benefit to society as a whole.

This will turn a few associations into complete wrecks, kill off some others, and do further damage to hockey as a whole in order to benefit a very very small number of kids. How do kids that reside in West St. Paul, Mineapolis, or Hopkins benefit from this? The only kids this benefits are the kids from wealthy enough homes to afford this, so while the kids who go to St. Thomas Academy get to decide whether or not they play with their friends and/or classmates the kids from West St. Paul don't, they get split up to make room for the others to come in. Stupid Stupid idea.

Just go to AAA and get on with it, this trying to appease everybody menatlity only further hurts the vast majority of kids.

mnhcp · Post by **mnhcp** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:39 pm

goldy313 wrote:They do, go play for Bernie or if it's that big of a deal move. Why should my tax dollars go to support your kid leaching off my community facilities?

Dude, Devils Advocate here: Remember, the families you're referring to pay for their own Private Schooling saving your community tax dollars! Secondly, this is finally the American Spirit at work here. Competition is good.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:31 pm

If this rule goes through, I'll be interested to know the number of kids that take advantage of this and where they are going...my guess is the Chicken Littles who are afraid of the proposed change will find out that the sky is not going to fall.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:23 pm

The rule has been passed and is in effect for the 2009-2010 season.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:42 am

GB58 or Elliot,

My interpretation of the rule as it is written (the letter of the law, if perhaps not the spirit of the law) is that, for the 2010-2011 season, Mite parents can choose to have the kids play in the association in which they live OR the association in which they go to school, but the first year squirts (10U) are required to play where they go to school; second year squirts (10U) and above are playing under the grandfather clause and play for the association they choose this year (2009-2010).

The Fire question (and MM Choice Squirts) is interesting, as well. Since these kids do not register with MNH, does MNH treat them as if they did not play at all this year? How will they be treated next year?

In addition, if a kid lives in WI (ND, SD, IA or even Canada) and goes to school in MN, can he play hockey in MN?

Please advise.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:25 am

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:01 am

I don't think this is true for all mites. The rule states that mite aged players may choose either. I don't see anything keeping them from choosing the other option in the 2nd year, then back again the 3rd, if they so choose. This Q/A addresses the mite aged kid that plays up as a squirt; it seems he will be treated as a squirt.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:26 am

IM
I will try and give an opinion but I am not a member of the Mn Hockey board and want to be careful. I think that after mites the player should be playing where the player attends school, just not a hundred % sure. Mn Hockey does not set a lot of rules concerning mites.
As for fire or MM, they were either USA Hockey registered or not registered in the eyes of Mn Hockey and so did not play with a Mn Hockey affiliate and the next year would have to play where they attend school, the previous year could get interesting.
By the way Goldy 313 I think has the best view on this.

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:54 am

I just don't buy the "I should be allowed to play my kid wherever I like" argument at all.

Any rule that puts any choice in the hands of parents is a bad rule.

"My kids want to play with their friends" = "My kid and his hockey friends are all-stars and I don't want my kid playing with kids who might be a little less advanced."

I agree with greybeard and Goldy - If you want to make all-star teams, get AAA in here now. Otherwise, play in the community where you live.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:02 am

stupidiswhatstupiddoes wrote:
multiplesportskids wrote:How does this new rule effect squirt aged players that would play for
the Fire next season ? Do they need a waiver ? If they returned to
association hockey the following season, would the "B" penalty apply?
uh,oh - Elliot, can you shed some light the question regarding playing for the Fire and what happens when you come back to your "affiliate" - specifically the part about playing "b". Thank you.

When you come back you play where you go to school.
The one year of B hockey would not apply as you were not at a different association within MNH.

Bob Halverson, chairman of the rules committee, is giving an un-official opinion on all questions. Your DD has the official opinion.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:06 am

Hockeydaddy wrote:I just don't buy the "I should be allowed to play my kid wherever I like" argument at all.

Any rule that puts any choice in the hands of parents is a bad rule.

"My kids want to play with their friends" = "My kid and his hockey friends are all-stars and I don't want my kid playing with kids who might be a little less advanced."
I agree with greybeard and Goldy - If you want to make all-star teams, get AAA in here now. Otherwise, play in the community where you live.

How about the kid who's family moved a few miles away, but he still goes to the same school because that where all his buddies are? If that's who he was playing hockey with, you are all for not letting him continue playing with his friends, but ripping him out and placing him with kids he doesn't know or will ever be friends with because he doesn't go to school with them?

The term "community" has changed quite a bit since MH first set down the rules, people need to keep this in mind.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:08 am

InigoMontoya wrote:GB58 or Elliot,

My interpretation of the rule as it is written (the letter of the law, if perhaps not the spirit of the law) is that, for the 2010-2011 season, Mite parents can choose to have the kids play in the association in which they live OR the association in which they go to school, but the first year squirts (10U) are required to play where they go to school; second year squirts (10U) and above are playing under the grandfather clause and play for the association they choose this year (2009-2010).

You are right.

The Fire question (and MM Choice Squirts) is interesting, as well. Since these kids do not register with MNH, does MNH treat them as if they did not play at all this year? How will they be treated next year?

Yes, they did not play hockey in MN. Next year they will be treated as new kids.

In addition, if a kid lives in WI (ND, SD, IA or even Canada) and goes to school in MN, can he play hockey in MN?

I have not seen this addressed yet, but I would assume they would be eligible to play in MNH, but since it crosses USAH affiliate lines, USAH would have to give an interpretation.

Please advise.

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:29 am

What about the kid who as a Mite last year played outside of their association of residence (e.g., MM Choice league), and is a first-year Squirt for 2009-10. Do they even qualify for the grandfathering election(because they did not play in their association of residence last year) or are they required to play in the association where they go to school for 2009-10. From some of the responses here and from the MN Hockey website, it sounds like they don't qualify for grandfathering.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:37 am

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:59 am

IM - is it your interpretation that mites can play at either the association of their residence or where they attend school until they reach squirts, then they will be forced to play at the association where they attend school?

Yes

My (maybe wishful) thinking was that if a mite registers with the affiliate where they reside they would have made their choice and could continue on to squirts with out being forced to change associations or to obtain a waiver.

You are not alone.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:05 pm

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence.

What about the kid who as a Mite last year played outside of their association of residence (e.g., MM Choice league), and is a first-year Squirt for 2009-10. Do they even qualify for the grandfathering election(because they did not play in their association of residence last year) or are they required to play in the association where they go to school for 2009-10. From some of the responses here and from the MN Hockey website, it sounds like they don't qualify for grandfathering.

trippedovertheblueline · Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:32 pm

This could be a mess.
A 1st year squirt whom lives in Lakeville but attends Farmington Public schools, because that is his district, can play hockey for Lakeville Hockey Assoc? What about a 2nd year squirt that already played on year with Farmington Hockey Assoc?

play4fun · Post by **play4fun** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:02 pm

trippedovertheblueline wrote:This could be a mess.
A 1st year squirt whom lives in Lakeville but attends Farmington Public schools, because that is his district, can play hockey for Lakeville Hockey Assoc? What about a 2nd year squirt that already played on year with Farmington Hockey Assoc?

I'm wondering how many families will find out about the change just before registration, or even when they go to register. Talk about some end of the summer fireworks.

The biggest issue is communicating the change, whatever its final form takes. This "bored" is only listing a few of the questions that will be asked and repeated around the state by even more confused parents. I'd hate to be a registrar fielding questions in just a few weeks... or any other association board member -- or even a DD for that matter.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:12 pm

trippedovertheblueline wrote:This could be a mess.
A 1st year squirt whom lives in Lakeville but attends Farmington Public schools, because that is his district, can play hockey for Lakeville Hockey Assoc? What about a 2nd year squirt that already played on year with Farmington Hockey Assoc?

It doesn't matter what city you live in. The change is from what association you lived in to what association you attend school in. The associations are set up by school district not by city.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:18 pm

It would be best for Minnesota Hockey to post an "FAQ" that address some of the obvious questions and situations around this rule. I am shocked on how complicated this appears. I still do not understand how a select few players will have an option where they can play- just doesn't seem right.

I think I am going to print up some yard signs "Play where you live"

let me know if you want any:)

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:37 pm

Help me to understand the panic that is being voiced here. Is the mite parent thinking there is career decision being made here?

I am trying to put my arms around just how many people this could effect. I am guessing that the Edina kids going to Benilde are not leaving Edina. I don't even think the Chaska kids going to Blake are moving. Are the Wayzata families going to Holy Angels joining Richfield?

I think is is still down to the disgruntled families that want out of their resident association that are trying to find additional ways out instead of growing their own program....but it could always just be good career planning.

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:06 pm

My biggest beef with what is obviously a poorly written rule is with the grandfather clause. I am convinced the drafters intended to permanently grandfather in kids who currently play for their local association. Accordingly, as long as a kid wanted to skate for his current association, the drafters intended the child should be able to do so, right? But that's not what the rule provides. Consider the following hypothetical:

Danny, an 11-year old hockey player, has played in the same association for the past 7 years. Danny attends a private Catholic k-6 school in his local community. During the 2009-2010 school year, Danny will be in sixth grade, so he will stay at his local Catholic school and play for his current association. At the end of the 2009-2010 season, the grandfather exception to the new participation rule expires.

In 2010-2011, Danny's parents' plan is to have Danny attend a 7-12 Catholic prep school. There is no local Catholic 7-12 school, so Danny must travel to a different city to attend school. Because the grandfather exception to the new rule applies only for the 2009-2010 season, Danny can play for his local association for the 2010-2011 season, but in the 2011-2012 season, because Danny changed schools, Danny must play for the association where his Catholic prep school is located, an association he has never played for and must now travel more than 20 miles to get to the new association's local arenas. Further, as a first-year Bantam, Danny isn't all that excited to play for an association where they don't even know his name.

What are Danny's options? Well, Danny can ask for a waiver, but will his current association be willing to allow him to continue to play when Danny won't attend the local high school? Not likely.

I recognize those of you who hate the private schools will think of this result as just desserts, but a kid who wants to attend a charter school or a magnet school in a different community could end up in the same predicament.

Here's my proposed amended rule:

The player can play anywhere he or she wants, as long as the player's account is current.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:25 pm

hockey_is_a_choice wrote:My biggest beef with what is obviously a poorly written rule is with the grandfather clause. I am convinced the drafters intended to permanently grandfather in kids who currently play for their local association. Accordingly, as long as a kid wanted to skate for his current association, the drafters intended the child should be able to do so, right? But that's not what the rule provides. Consider the following hypothetical:

In 2010-2011, Danny's parents' plan is to have Danny attend a 7-12 Catholic prep school. There is no local Catholic 7-12 school, so Danny must travel to a different city to attend school. Because the grandfather exception to the new rule applies only for the 2009-2010 season, Danny can play for his local association for the 2010-2011 season, but in the 2011-2012 season, because Danny changed schools, Danny must play for the association where his Catholic prep school is located, an association he has never played for and must now travel more than 20 miles to get to the new association's local arenas. Further, as a first-year Bantam, Danny isn't all that excited to play for an association where they don't even know his name.

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate participation determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation.

My interpretation is that the boy or girl can stay with the residency affiliation for their whole hockey career. MNH is not forcing you to play at your schools location...only giving the option.

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:08 pm

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate participation determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation.

Yes, but in 2008-2009, Danny did not "attend[] school elsewhere." In 2008-2009, Danny attended the local Catholic k-6 school that is located within his current association's boundaries. In 2010-2011, Danny will be in 7th grade and will move to the 7-12 Catholic prep school that is located in another association boundaries. By its terms, this exception does not apply to Danny's situation.