New participation rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply
elliott70
Posts: 15766
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 »

puckboy wrote:MN Hockey please reply

Is this new rule meant to solve a previous issue, if so what was the previous issue you were trying to solve.
This issue arose in two manners:

A very small group approached MH nocjey looking for some way for hteir young players (mites) to play where they went to schoo because it made sense for their famlies.

MH terrible (IMO) attempt at gathering information and then ranking it interms of priorites - this was then sent to an assinine in methodology (IMO) discernment committee.

It has not solved any problem only reshaped it.
Some are happy, some are unhappy, many have no idea, many are confused.

The policy was meant to clarify and make it easier for those that wanted their mites in a different program for reasons other than hockey.
I don't think clarification was achieved.
elliott70
Posts: 15766
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 »

34FC wrote:Hard to know what MN Hockey was trying to address...

Below is a real scenario...I understand kids wanting to play with their classmates. However, waivering in/skating on a team because your summer AAA coach thinks his PWA team has a chance to go to state is over the top...

A 12 yr old D4 player that has always resided and gone to school in D4 (including 2008-2009); is recruited by D6 PWA coach for 2008-09 season. In order to play in D6; wealthy players parents advised to rent an apartment (say Mom needs it for her work) in D6 city. Player uses apartment address to register as D6 resident and skates all season on D6 PWA team, displacing local player and dividing association parents.

Elliot: How does the new residency rule apply to these temporary addresses? Or is this type of manipulation only possible when someone inside the association/district decides to look the other way?
It is difficult to answer as there is no one definition of residency.
In D16 your reisdnece is where you spend the preponderance amount of time or where the custodial parent lives.
Manipulation would be easy, I would think, in the metro area. (Not that outstate would not be above this but because of geography).
Pens4
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:45 am

Post by Pens4 »

elliott70 wrote:
puckboy wrote:MN Hockey please reply

Is this new rule meant to solve a previous issue, if so what was the previous issue you were trying to solve.
This issue arose in two manners:

A very small group approached MH nocjey looking for some way for hteir young players (mites) to play where they went to schoo because it made sense for their famlies.

MH terrible (IMO) attempt at gathering information and then ranking it interms of priorites - this was then sent to an assinine in methodology (IMO) discernment committee.

It has not solved any problem only reshaped it.
Some are happy, some are unhappy, many have no idea, many are confused.

The policy was meant to clarify and make it easier for those that wanted their mites in a different program for reasons other than hockey.
I don't think clarification was achieved.
Elliot...That is is an extremely impressive take on this. Could MNH actually put a rule like this is place with the mite level player as the focus. It is the one level that MNH actually has never truely controlled.

As long as you're on the path of full disclosure and savagery...any idea who might be the push behind this ?????????????????
TriedThat2
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:33 am

Post by TriedThat2 »

Mark,
Weren't you on the Discernment Committee? I thought I read once that all DD's were members?
elliott70
Posts: 15766
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 »

Pens4 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
puckboy wrote:MN Hockey please reply

Is this new rule meant to solve a previous issue, if so what was the previous issue you were trying to solve.
This issue arose in two manners:

A very small group approached MH nocjey looking for some way for hteir young players (mites) to play where they went to schoo because it made sense for their famlies.

MH terrible (IMO) attempt at gathering information and then ranking it interms of priorites - this was then sent to an assinine in methodology (IMO) discernment committee.

It has not solved any problem only reshaped it.
Some are happy, some are unhappy, many have no idea, many are confused.

The policy was meant to clarify and make it easier for those that wanted their mites in a different program for reasons other than hockey.
I don't think clarification was achieved.
Elliot...That is is an extremely impressive take on this. Could MNH actually put a rule like this is place with the mite level player as the focus. It is the one level that MNH actually has never truely controlled.

As long as you're on the path of full disclosure and savagery...any idea who might be the push behind this ?????????????????
I have some thoughts on that, but I have no way of knowing for sure, so I will just keep my mouth shut.
elliott70
Posts: 15766
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 »

TriedThat2 wrote:Mark,
Weren't you on the Discernment Committee? I thought I read once that all DD's were members?
I was, then I was an outcast. I did not receive notice of meetings (if they were being held).
Then the meetings were held at our regular meetings.
Brad Hewitt and I worked in one small group. We were presented various options of whether they should be included or excluded in the rule. There was not one particular rule that Brad or I accepted at face value.
The next thing you know we have a rule, but no one liked it at the Spring.
Then another rule that was redrafted at the summer meeting and voted on which allowed no district board or local association opportunity to review and modify.

Hurry up and wait and then rush to a decision.
hockey_is_a_choice
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:48 am

Post by hockey_is_a_choice »

Here's my annotated interpretations of the new Participation Rule. (My annotated explanations are in bold.) I think my interpretations are correct, but are they?

IV. PARTICIPATION

A. PARTICIPATION POLICY
MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. Members in good standing are to participate on teams from their local affiliate (local association) based on where they attend school and the established MH affiliate boundaries as defined in the Affiliate Agreements. Mite-aged players are allowed to participate based on residence.

By its terms, this provision means that hockey "community" for a child playing at or above the Squirt or U10 levels is now defined by where the child goes to school, even if the child's school is located outside the geographical boundaries of the nearest local association covering the child's permanent residence. Mite-aged players can skate for their local association, i.e., the association they would play for under the old rule.

B. PARTICIPATION RULE

1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the responsible district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver.

By its terms, this provision means that a child needs a waiver if he or she would like to play for an association other than his or her newly defined "community" association. See above for definition of hockey community.

2. Starting with the 2009-2010 season, Affiliate Participation for Squirt-aged players and above is redefined as players attending school in the Affiliate's geographic area, rather than those who are residing in the Affiliate's geographic area.

By its terms, this provision means that, beginning this season, 2009-2010, for any child playing at or above the Squirt or U10 level "community" association is now generally determined by the location of the child's school, not the location of the child's permanent residence.

a. Mite-aged players may choose to register in either their Affiliate of School Attendance or their Affiliate of Residence.

By its terms, this provision means that mite-aged players can choose to play for an association based on where they go to school or where they reside.

b. For school districts with multiple High Schools and multiple MH Affiliates, participation for Squirt-aged players and above shall be defined by one of the following:

i) A player attending an elementary, middle or junior high school whose geographical attendance area is completely within the geographical attendance area of a single high school is a member of the MH Affiliate covering that high school's area.

By its terms, this provision means that if you live in a large school district with multiple high schools and multiple Minnesota Hockey affiliates (e.g., Anoka Hennepin Independent School District No. 11) and your child plays at the Squirt or U10 level or above and the child's elementary, middle or junior high school geographic attendance area is completely within the geographical attendance boundaries of a SINGLE high school, your child must play for the association covering that high school's geographical area.

ii) A player attending an elementary, middle or junior high school whose geographical attendance area overlaps the geographical attendance areas of multiple high schools is a member of the MH Affiliate covering the location of the residence of the player's parent(s) or legal guardian(s).

By its terms, this provision means that if your child's elementary, middle or junior high school overlaps the geographical boundary lines of MORE than one high school, your child must play for the association that "cover[s]" the child's permanent residence. This requirement is consistent with the old residency requirement.

c. Changing Schools; A player who newly enrolls in a school outside of the geographic boundary of their current Affiliate without a corresponding change of residence shall elect one of the following:

i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance; or

By its terms, this provision means that if your child changes school outside the geographic boundary of their current association, but not move to a different house, your child can play hockey for their current association, on any level traveling team (e.g., A, B or C) for one year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school. After the one-year period expires, your child can leave his or her association and play for the association that covers the location of the new school attended by the child and be "fully eligible" to play on any level traveling team (i.e., A, B or C). Significantly, this provision does not specifically state that, if your child opts to continue to play for his or her current association, your child can continue to play for that association beyond the one-year period.

ii) be eligible at the "B" classification or lower in their new Affiliate of School Attendance for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school.

Alternatively, if your child changes schools without moving to a different house, your child can immediately change associations and play for the association that covers the location of your child's new school, but your child is not eligible for "A" level traveling teams for a one-year period, which period begins to run beginning with the first calendar day your child attends the new school. In other words, if your child changes schools--but does not move to a new house--your child can select option c(i) or option c(ii).

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 [sic] 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.

By its terms, this provision means that for the 2009-2010 season only, a child who played for an association based on the location of his or her permanent residence during the 2008-2009 season--but attended a school located outside the geographical boundaries of the association covering the child's permanent residence--has a one time exemption to continue to play for the child's current association or play for the association that covers the location of the child's school. Note, although this provision does not specifically address whether the child who opts to change associations will be penalized by not being eligible for the new association's "A" level traveling team, MH has interpreted the provision to mean that the penalty will be waived for the 2009-2010 season. Further, the provision requires the child who opts to continue to play for his or her current association--but later moves to a new house located outside the boundaries of the association that covers his or her old permanent residence--to play for the association that covers the location of the child's school.

3. A player who is denied a waiver by his/her affiliate may appeal in writing to the responsible District Director who, after investigation, will issue a ruling. The decision of the District Director is final. Also see Section entitled Eligibility Provisions.

By its terms, this provision requires a player who asks his or her current association's president for a waiver to play for a different association to appeal the association president's denial to the "responsible" District Director who will, in turn, issue a ruling. Further, the provision provides that the District Director's decision is "final." What this means is that, if you do not like the District Director's ruling, you can challenge the District Director's decision in a court of law. In order to prevail, however, and overturn the District Director's decision you will need to convince a judge that the District Director acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, which is a difficult standard to overcome. A judge will not substitute his or her decision for a District Director's decision absent fraud, favoritism or improvidence. If you decide to sue your District Director, you need to make sure that you exhaust every administrative hoops set forth by your association, district and Minnesota Hockey, otherwise your child may be ineligible to play for any Minnesota Hockey affiliate. See MH Bylaws, Article 6.I.

4. Players having dual citizenship, one being the United States, must also conform to the Participation rule.

By its terms, this means that if your child is a United States citizen and a citizen of another country, the Participation rule applies to your child, too. Interestingly, this provision does not address whether the Participation rule applies to permanent resident aliens or illegal immigrants. :D
Shoot Higher
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:21 pm

Post by Shoot Higher »

elliott70 wrote:
TriedThat2 wrote:Mark,
Weren't you on the Discernment Committee? I thought I read once that all DD's were members?
I was, then I was an outcast. I did not receive notice of meetings (if they were being held).
Then the meetings were held at our regular meetings.
Brad Hewitt and I worked in one small group. We were presented various options of whether they should be included or excluded in the rule. There was not one particular rule that Brad or I accepted at face value.
The next thing you know we have a rule, but no one liked it at the Spring.
Then another rule that was redrafted at the summer meeting and voted on which allowed no district board or local association opportunity to review and modify.

Hurry up and wait and then rush to a decision.
Elliot- I have been reading your posts for some time now, you seem like a guy who cares about MN hockey and our all our youth. Thanks for all you do, even if you are sometimes unpopular for taking the high road or attempt to help when no one else will.

Hockey families that have moved outside of MN (not WI) say that while there are still politics, hockey is not the same with it all being AAA. People drive up to 5 hrs with expenses of up to $1000 just to tryout. Once the season starts, almost all games are in the form of travel tournaments on the weekends (adding cost and time) While this works for some, most kids and familes just opt not to play. What a shame to be missing out on just playing hockey with your buddies.

Hopefully selfish, elitist parents won't destroy MN association hockey for our children/grandchildren. Some of my kids best hockey memories come from AAA hockey. We still need our association hockey communities to be able to support as many kids as possible to reap the benefits of playing the great game of hockey.
goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 »

elliott70 wrote: The policy was meant to clarify and make it easier for those that wanted their mites in a different program for reasons other than hockey.
I don't think clarification was achieved.
MN hockey should make it as easy as possible for any kid to play hockey, especially the youngest ones. MN Hockey should limit it to that, non traveling or non cutting teams gain kids, the traveling teams do not.
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 »

del
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
hockeyboys
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm

Post by hockeyboys »

we are going to maintain our policy - we do not waive players except for co-ops.
It is not your choice. Players don't need to obtain waivers who are going to school outside your affiliate boundaries. They dont' have to come to you for wiaver requests. They just register with the association in which their school is locatred. You have no choice here. You can have any policy you want - but it is meaningless - you have no authority to block a player from registering with the association in which MN Hockey has assigned them.
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 »

del
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
DMom
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:46 am

Post by DMom »

HockeyDad41 wrote:
hockeyboys wrote:
we are going to maintain our policy - we do not waive players except for co-ops.
It is not your choice. Players don't need to obtain waivers who are going to school outside your affiliate boundaries. They dont' have to come to you for wiaver requests. They just register with the association in which their school is locatred. You have no choice here. You can have any policy you want - but it is meaningless - you have no authority to block a player from registering with the association in which MN Hockey has assigned them.
Even if he is only talking about families that are assigned to his affiliate, it is still a poor policy. If you can't take the time to have a conversation with a parent who might have a legitimate need to waiver out, you don't deserve to represent the affiliate.
Spoken like someone who has never been hounded (over 50 phone calls) by a parent looking to bend the rules. You are already asking too much of volunteer hockey boards, legislating this would be a red-iculous. SW has always sounded like a voice of reason to me, and in this case, when it will all be taking place at a point (registration ) where volunteers are already swamped, he is simply saying that they won't facilitate this.
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 »

del
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
nhl'er
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:37 pm

Post by nhl'er »

HockeyDad41 wrote:
DMom wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote: Even if he is only talking about families that are assigned to his affiliate, it is still a poor policy. If you can't take the time to have a conversation with a parent who might have a legitimate need to waiver out, you don't deserve to represent the affiliate.
Spoken like someone who has never been hounded (over 50 phone calls) by a parent looking to bend the rules. You are already asking too much of volunteer hockey boards, legislating this would be a red-iculous. SW has always sounded like a voice of reason to me, and in this case, when it will all be taking place at a point (registration ) where volunteers are already swamped, he is simply saying that they won't facilitate this.
Sounds like someone making excuses for poor leadership. If you can't find a way to talk to your parents about their concerns, unvolunteer and let someone who will do the job do the job. In other words if you can't afford the time to do the job correctly (and don't tell me that it can't be done) resign and let someone who can find the time do it. I suspect it doesn't take long to filter the legit requests from the rule benders and to act accordingly. To not even take the time to listen is red-iculous.
This is class example for why they need to take the waiver policy powers away from the local association president and have MH have stated policy on when a waiver should be automatically granted.
Night Train
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm

Post by Night Train »

Yah, none.

Play youth hockey where you live and then make a high school choice.
SB65
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:38 am

Post by SB65 »

Jeez, as if it weren't hard enough already to get quality people involved with our Hockey Boards (1st hand experience). Let's just throw the tracking of this new participation rule on top of the current load and then chastise volunteers if they seem less than thrilled about it.

Since this gorilla was created by the MN Hockey board how about THEY administer it and determine where all the kids should play - after all..

"If you can't find a way to talk to your parents about their concerns, unvolunteer and let someone who will do the job do the job. In other words if you can't afford the time to do the job correctly (and don't tell me that it can't be done) resign and let someone who can find the time do it. I suspect it doesn't take long to filter the legit requests from the rule benders and to act accordingly."

I find it incredible that all this was based on a small group of mite parents and a poorly done survey. No, the current system is not perfect but at least it was straight forward. Now we are talking about tracking kids and determining if they are eligible for A teams, and if they attended school here for 2 months then transferred and then the family moved, blah, blah, blah. Seriously? The special circumstances and situations are going to be endless.

Elliott, thanks for all you do. Hopefully it's not too late to clear this up....
vikes40for60
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:28 pm

Post by vikes40for60 »

I am pretty sure that one of the small group of parents who approached MH originated in our association. I sit on the board and heard their family request request for waivers to play in a neighboring association and I voted to decline it (reasons below). It was escalatd to our district and it too was declined. I believe it was brought to Minnesota Hockey as Elliot describes. The son eventually played in our Mite program and the daughter skated with the Choice league.

We are a medium sized suburban association surrounded by the two largest associations in the state. Our policy on waivers is and was simple, we do not grant waivers for anything except co-ops. This was the same as our district policy and the same for all of neighboring associations. We clearly state that to all of our families with a written published policy. If you live within our association boundaries, you must play for us. No exceptions.

FYI - I coached the 6 year old kid at Mites last year even though his parents said it was a dreadful experience for him to not play with his friends. He sure had a lot of fun if you judge it by his enthusiasm and smile. Kids make due, its the parents who are the clowns.

In our association 15% of the kids attend school in other districts. That represents about 50 players of our 400.
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 »

del
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
vikes40for60
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:28 pm

Post by vikes40for60 »

Its the principle of a rule and sticking to it. I certainly understand your viewpoint HockeyDad41, but understand if we waived out everyone that asked, how can we work on improving product with less and less players.

What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. If our neighboring associations refuse to let out players, why should we? Note: We were only following the guidance of our District and the rules set forth by Minnesota hockey and their community hockey model.

If you want to play elsewhere cause the product stinks, its a free world, you can move.

Our product is certainly not Edina and we dont have the numbers that some of our neighboring associations do, but we are improving. We like to consider our program "best of the rest". We have growing numbers and a great volunteer based dedicated to improving hockey in our community.
Pens4
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:45 am

Post by Pens4 »

vikes40for60 wrote:I am pretty sure that one of the small group of parents who approached MH originated in our association. I sit on the board and heard their family request request for waivers to play in a neighboring association and I voted to decline it (reasons below). It was escalatd to our district and it too was declined. I believe it was brought to Minnesota Hockey as Elliot describes. The son eventually played in our Mite program and the daughter skated with the Choice league.

We are a medium sized suburban association surrounded by the two largest associations in the state. Our policy on waivers is and was simple, we do not grant waivers for anything except co-ops. This was the same as our district policy and the same for all of neighboring associations. We clearly state that to all of our families with a written published policy. If you live within our association boundaries, you must play for us. No exceptions.

FYI - I coached the 6 year old kid at Mites last year even though his parents said it was a dreadful experience for him to not play with his friends. He sure had a lot of fun if you judge it by his enthusiasm and smile. Kids make due, its the parents who are the clowns.

In our association 15% of the kids attend school in other districts. That represents about 50 players of our 400.
This is an interesting take on the reasoning for the new rule but I think the purpose may have been to actually control the mite age kids and in particular the private (non-afilliated) mite programs such as MN Made.

In our Eden Prairie program we have kids that played mites at MN Made last year and will be squirts this year. They go to school at Blake and even though they planned on playing at EP this year they will have to get waived out of Hopkins and accepted by EP. From what I hear, Hopkins too is very strict with their waiver policy.

The private school kids that play their mites @ MN Made will find themselves scrambling to get back to their resident programs.
SB65
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:38 am

Post by SB65 »

HockeyDad41 wrote: I'll bet if the parent offered to buy their way out of the association they would get a call back. No one cares if little Johnny skates, they just want the money he represents.
You would lose that bet at my association. We don't need money - we need PLAYERS.

"Open Enrollment" for youth hockey would be the death of the smaller associations that border large ones. It may not happen overnight but it wouldn't take long....
hockey_is_a_choice
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:48 am

Post by hockey_is_a_choice »

Even for those of us who believe the old MH residency rule needed to be changed, most—if not all—of us agree the new MH Participation Rule is poorly drafted and will impose unreasonable burdens on the volunteers charged with determining whether a player is playing for the appropriate association. In a nutshell, MH made the new rule too complicated.

I know some of you oppose any change from the prior rule, but the MH Board has spoken and we have a new--albeit cumbersome--rule. Assuming for the sake of discussion the new rule will continue to exist, I suggest we determine whether we can use this forum's collective intellectual horsepower to draft a shorter, more understandable rule that will reduce the burdens imposed on the hardworking volunteers who will be charged with figuring where Danny or Susie should play hockey. This means the word compromise has to be imprinted on your drafting pencil.

To that end, I took a stab at redrafting the new MH Participation rule. My proposed amended rule is set forth below. I believe the intent of the MH Board was to keep part of the old residency rule, but allow players to choose where they play based on the geographic location of the player’s school. Well, why not allow players to have a choice to play for the association that covers their legal residence or to play for the association that covers the geographic area where the player’s school is located, if it is a different association from the “local” association?

As you can see, my proposed amended rule does not punish a player who changes schools, but does not move to a new house. Why not? Kids change schools for reasons other than hockey and they should not be punished for moving to a new school anymore than they are punished for moving to a new house located in a different association. Further, the one-year punishment imposes another burden on association registrars and other volunteers who must track the beginning and end of each one-period eligibility period.

My intent is to see whether we, as a group, can create a better mouse trap than the trap drafted by the MH Board. Again, I know some of you don't want a new Participation rule, but let's recognize for this exercise that the old residency rule was repealed. Here is my proposed amended MH Participation rule, but, if you think you can make any meaningful edits, go for it.


IV. PARTICIPATION
A. PARTICIPATION POLICY
MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. All members in good standing (players) are to participate on teams offered by their local Affiliate (local association) based on where they attend school or the location of the residence of the player’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s), as set forth in the established MH affiliate boundaries defined in Affiliate Agreements.

B. PARTICIPATION RULE
1. Youth Hockey players must play within Affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's Affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving Affiliates and receive the approval of the responsible district director(s). A player who participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A player must obtain a waiver before the player can participate on teams outside the designated Affiliate boundary.
2. Starting with the 2009-2010 season, Affiliate Participation for all players is redefined to cover those players residing in an Affiliate’s geographic area and players attending school in an Affiliate's geographic area.
a. For school districts with multiple High Schools and multiple MH Affiliates, participation for players shall be defined by one of the following:
hockeyboys
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm

Post by hockeyboys »

"Open Enrollment" for youth hockey would be the death of the smaller associations that border large ones. It may not happen overnight but it wouldn't take long....
That is flat out 100% wrong. There are many, many, many parents who would drive their future NHLer to the smaller associations to give them a better shot at being on an A team - 'cause they get screwed at their own association and thier kid was put on a B team.
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Post by HockeyDad41 »

del
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply