New participation rule

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:08 pm

vikes40for60 wrote: 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.

Nice cop out. MH obviously sees legitimate reasons for waivers or they wouldn't have made the provision. To have a no waivers - no exceptions policy is part of the problem in this mess.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:13 am

so a child that lives in his same residence for his entire youth could actually play for 4 different associations if he started in private schools at age of 4. Very possible all 4 schools could be in a different association.

pre k- could play mites
k-5
6-8
9-12

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:37 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:How about this:

Your child's school will have a large easily seen logo of its mascot boldly painted in the lunch room. Your association of physical residence will mail you an 8" 10" photo of the association mascot. If the two match no problem. If they don't, you select one mascot. This is your association.

I know that's too simple, but jeez, is it really more difficult than that?

I think I like where you are going with this, but to clarify: if the mascot in the lunchroom is a large blue and green Bear and the mascot that was mailed to him or her was a red and black eagle, which mascot does the kid choose? This blue and green Bear does not match up with a local association. Can the child still choose to be an Eagle? Alternatively, can the child decide to be a Hornet or a Jaguar? Or must s/he choose between an Eagle and another mascot, such as a Royal? I hope that if the Bear didn't match up with the Eagle that s/he wouldn't then be required to have a different mascot, one that s/he didn't choose (i.e., that s/he could still be an Eagle until s/he would have the opportunity to play hockey as a blue and green Bear).

mngopherfan · Post by **mngopherfan** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:35 am

Is there anyway around the rule that you are only eligible for B hockey if you switch school districts and in turn switch associations? It would make sense that you play with Kids who you are going to play with in HS?

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:42 am

HD, one further clarification, in our example, if the blue and green Bears don't have a youth hockey association, practically speaking, the child would have to be an Eagle, right? I don't see a choice unless the family is able to obtain a waiver (which could be perfectly fine as a rule, I am merely clarifying whether or not this family would have a choice in terms of where to play youth hockey).

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:09 am

Here's the full text of my proposed amended Participation rule (it doesn't include any references to mascots):

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:
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.
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).
b. 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; or
ii) Be fully eligible to compete at any classification in their new Affiliate of School Attendance upon registration with the new Affiliate.
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 considered to be a final administrative decision and cannot be appealed, except to a Minnesota State District Court. Also see Section entitled Eligibility Provisions.
4. Players having dual citizenship, one being the United States, resident aliens or players who are present in the United States on student or temporary visas must also conform to the Participation rule.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:26 am

Pretty sure the kids that attend Breck & Blake, both K-12, will now play with the Hopkins Youth Hockey Association. No choice.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:11 pm

yeahyeahyeah · Post by **yeahyeahyeah** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:35 pm

spin-o-rama wrote:
vikes40for60 wrote: 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.
Nice cop out. MH obviously sees legitimate reasons for waivers or they wouldn't have made the provision. To have a no waivers - no exceptions policy is part of the problem in this mess.

Until you have served in an executive board position within a hockey association you have no idea of what the volunteers are responsible for. It is easy to sit back and say, "do it this way or do it that way". I say put your money where your mouth is and get on board to help. I am guessing many of you think a board position is a lowly place to be, that only desperate people participate. In my opinion total BS but also unfortunately true in some individuals.
The pressure on board execs comes from all directions. Ultra competitive families want what they want and recreational families want something entirely different. The middle ground is the majority and who usually wins out.
The weight of the ASSOCIATION not individuals are on Board Execs shoulders. Consider the following please before judging this post.
Traditionally, the boards primary responsibility above anything else is to insure that there is a place for kids have a place to play hockey, period. I am in an association that has about 450 players. Not big and not small but definitely declining. Every kid registered within in our geographic boundary is critical to the business of the association. How? no not because we want their money but because for every team we lose we increase our existing ice surplus, yes I said surplus. We are contractually obligated to by "X" amount of ice each year. One less team means roughly 100 hours of ice has to be used some how, typically speaking this means the price of hockey goes up for everyone. "X" number of hours is based on a contract that will not run out for many years. If we default we stand to lose ALL of it.
Hockey + greater expense = decreased registrants.

We do waive individuals out based on the situation at hand. Our surrounding associations only allow players (under the residency policy) to play lower than the B level so usually people were moving on for solid familial reasons.

Another pressure comes directly from the governing bodies, local district and Mn Hockey. The waiver policy was in ink but only one person was typically responsibile for deciding who gets to take advantage of it, The association president singed the waiver that is important to understand. Minnesota Hockey and our local district would completely wash their hands of the process and lay ALL the responsibility or ramifications on the association. For each waiver signed a precedent was set for future waivers. Who wants to be responsible for creating situations that could potentially lead to more waivers and greater decline in registrations knowing it could strap the association?
Same goes with boundary enforcement. For years we had kids playing for us even though they lived across the street and should attend the neighboring association. Unless the association did anything about it our district and MH would act like Schultz from Hogans Hero, "I know nahTHING!" but if the infraction were reported you can be sure that fines would be levied and they would not be small fines. (Some of you are concerned with the difficulty of monitoring the new policy? I think MH is licking their chops just thinking about all the fine money they stand to collect due to infractions.)

What kills be about all of this is the hypocrisy of people both for and against this policy. Who are we to say that our kids are not happy where they are currently at, since when is having MORE friends and more diverse friends been a bad thing? Many of the very people that have been pushing for Elite level hockey are now extolling the virtues of "friendships" to try and achieve their developmental goals. This happens to be a policy that at the very heart pits the haves versus the have nots (or at least the arrogant versus the well grounded). "My kid is too good for this"
Youth sports offer such great life experiences for our kids. Parent involvement never ceases to amaze me. Lacrosse is one of the greatest games going at the moment primarily because parents are not yet involved deeply enough so that they can ruin it. Last week I heard a person say we need to create and ELITE level lacrosse program so the kids did not have to play with less developed kids......Here we go. I have a better idea, buy a folding chair and enjoy each kid for what they are win or lose, whether they have the ability to catch the puck or ball or not. High level play will come soon enough when it counts the most, at High School. Until then relax and try finding the satisfaction in the kids efforts not how they negatively impact your kid.

Oh yeah did I mention that there are more Minnesota kids in the NHL and College hockey than any other state? The current system was flawed for sure.

vikes40for60 · Post by **vikes40for60** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:54 pm

Why is following a rule a cop out?

Of course their are exceptions, we make them all the time. Like last year Upon registering for his 6th year of hockey (last year of Bantams) this players address was finally "double checked by the new registrar". Our board decided it was not in the best interest of this player to have to come and play in our association. We granted him a waiver.

However when a parent comes to the board and claims that if his 5 year old has to skate at our arena and not with his friends it will create lasting emotional scars, I have no guilt saying. "No waivers, you play here.

The mess is listening to the vocal minority.....

SB65 · Post by **SB65** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:23 pm

hockeyboys wrote:
"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.

What A team? You forgot that all the true A level players in the small association will be playing with the big association next door.

So we'll combine the leftovers from the small association with the disgruntled B players from the large association to form an A team? Sounds like a recipe for long term success....

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:27 pm

So we'll combine the leftovers from the small association with the disgruntled B players from the large association to form an A team? Sounds like a recipe for long term success....

couldn't agree with you more. But - mommys and daddys will be able to tell all their friends that their kid is an "A" player.

Also remember - that all these smaller association kids that go and take A spots from the big associaiton kids - have now displaced an "A" player and angered their parents. Where do these kids go? To the small association to make thier A team? Or happy to be on the B team?

In reality - it probably means very little movement at all.

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:31 pm

HockeyDad41, you asked "how would waivers be handled?" Good question. Here's my response:

All waiver requests could be decided by an independent panel of 3 individuals, appointed by the MH Board (the "waiver review panel"). Each member of the waiver review panel would be appointed to serve a three-year term, with each member serving a staggered term (i.e., only one member's term expires in any given calendar year). The waiver review panel would decide all requests for waivers from participants of all MH Affiliates. The existence of a panel would hopefully eliminate the inconsistent use of the waiver process across MH's Affiliates. Because most request for waivers are made in late summer/early fall, the panel's time commitment to the process would be limited in scope of hours. The panel could receive the waiver requests electronically and confer by telephone conferences, which would eliminate travel time and costs.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:21 pm

vikes40for60 wrote: Why is following a rule a cop out?

The cop out is claiming that your no waiver policy is following MH rules. MH allows for waivers. Your association denies all. You have a waiver policy the same as the St Louis Park firm has a credit arbitration policy. Everyone is turned down.

Wasn't one of the goals of this new policy to make a more consistent ruling on when and how waivers are to be granted? MH seems to have skipped that part.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:59 pm

puckfan · Post by **puckfan** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:26 am

Theres always the MN Supreme Court to appeal to if you don't get the answer you like.......

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:03 am

There's always the MN Supreme Court to appeal to if you don't get the answer you like....... Laughing

Puckfan, you're correct. Although the current Participation Rule provides that the District Director's decision is "final." That simply isn't true. There's a thing called constitutional due process in this country and the courts, not a District Director, are empowered to have the "last word." Now, as a practical matter, few people will resort to the courts if a DD denies a waiver request, but, an appeal process is guaranteed to all of us by the US Constitution.

My question to HockeyDad41 is: If MH allows a player to choose between the association that covers the player's permanent residence or the association that covers the geographic location of the player's school, do you agree that the number of waiver requests will drop significantly?

Finally, MH, the districts and the associations are concerned about money. Charging for each waiver request ($50-$100) would generate revenue and make people think twice before asking for a waiver.

a1puck · Post by **a1puck** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:01 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:I am becoming more convinced that associations should not have the ability to deny exit waivers. Chances are if someone wants out it is for a legitimate reason, and I for one believe an association putting out a crappy product is a legitimate reason.

From what I have read here, a lot of associations are holding their members hostage. It's a sad state of affairs if you have to keep your association numbers by forcing your members to stay rather than having them want to stay.

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.

Minnesota State HS league has rules similar to youth hockey. If a player open enrolls to another school he become ineligible for varsity for one calendar year. Why?

Small associations simply cannot produce the same product as large. Wide open enrollment will kill the smallest associations.

a1puck · Post by **a1puck** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:17 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:
hockey_is_a_choice wrote:HockeyDad41, you asked "how would waivers be handled?" Good question. Here's my response:

All waiver requests could be decided by an independent panel of 3 individuals, appointed by the MH Board (the "waiver review panel"). Each member of the waiver review panel would be appointed to serve a three-year term, with each member serving a staggered term (i.e., only one member's term expires in any given calendar year). The waiver review panel would decide all requests for waivers from participants of all MH Affiliates. The existence of a panel would hopefully eliminate the inconsistent use of the waiver process across MH's Affiliates. Because most request for waivers are made in late summer/early fall, the panel's time commitment to the process would be limited in scope of hours. The panel could receive the waiver requests electronically and confer by telephone conferences, which would eliminate travel time and costs.
I like it. Could there be appeals? If so how would they be handled?

Appeals? Are you for real?

vikes40for60 · Post by **vikes40for60** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:26 am

Pens4 wrote: Hopkins too is very strict with their waiver policy.

This is one of our neighboring associations. All of the affiliates in our district follow a uniform policy set forth by District 3, its policies, and the interpretation of community hockey concept supported by Minnesota Hockey. None of which allowed open enrollment for the reason to waive.

Free waivers given out like popsicles at a Park on a hot sunny day is not a good idea. While we did have a general "no waiver policy in place", we allowed any family that wanted to have a discussion about their particular "reason" they want a waiver . Some were granted but most were denied. Having such a policy was common place and was encouraged by our district leadership.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:30 am

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:31 am

a1puck wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:
hockey_is_a_choice wrote:HockeyDad41, you asked "how would waivers be handled?" Good question. Here's my response:

All waiver requests could be decided by an independent panel of 3 individuals, appointed by the MH Board (the "waiver review panel"). Each member of the waiver review panel would be appointed to serve a three-year term, with each member serving a staggered term (i.e., only one member's term expires in any given calendar year). The waiver review panel would decide all requests for waivers from participants of all MH Affiliates. The existence of a panel would hopefully eliminate the inconsistent use of the waiver process across MH's Affiliates. Because most request for waivers are made in late summer/early fall, the panel's time commitment to the process would be limited in scope of hours. The panel could receive the waiver requests electronically and confer by telephone conferences, which would eliminate travel time and costs.
I like it. Could there be appeals? If so how would they be handled?
Appeals? Are you for real?

Yes I am for real. Thanks for checking.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:33 am