Special meeting on new rule?

[elliott70]

Should MH hold a special meeting on the new rule?
Would those with concerns show up?

An idea has been proposed to simplify the rule and at lesat one individual has called for a special meeting.

[SWPrez]

I'd be there. I am sure virtually all District 1 association Presidents or representatives would be there.

I would think associations like Kennedy, Orono, Mound-Westonka, and others would want to be in attendance too.

[mngopherfan]

I'd be there. I am sure virtually all District 1 association Presidents or representatives would be there.

I would think associations like Kennedy, Orono, Mound-Westonka, and others would want to be in attendance too.

What would the amendment be??

[elliott70]

I'd be there. I am sure virtually all District 1 association Presidents or representatives would be there.

I would think associations like Kennedy, Orono, Mound-Westonka, and others would want to be in attendance too.

What would the amendment be??

The amendment would make it simple at least for this year....

Register where you live or inthe association where the player's school is located.
Validation for school would simply take some form of letter correspondence indicating the player was attending a particular school.
My daughter receives correspondence from her daughter's school this time of the year. First year kids at school get some sort of registration material.
Nothiing complicated.

[nhl'er]

I'd be there. I am sure virtually all District 1 association Presidents or representatives would be there.

I would think associations like Kennedy, Orono, Mound-Westonka, and others would want to be in attendance too.

What would the amendment be??

The amendment would make it simple at least for this year....

Register where you live or inthe association where the player's school is located.
Validation for school would simply take some form of letter correspondence indicating the player was attending a particular school.
My daughter receives correspondence from her daughter's school this time of the year. First year kids at school get some sort of registration material.
Nothiing complicated.

This is exactly what should have been written in the first place. Clean and simple and improving the system for the better.

[mngopherfan]

What would the amendment be??

The amendment would make it simple at least for this year....

Register where you live or inthe association where the player's school is located.
Validation for school would simply take some form of letter correspondence indicating the player was attending a particular school.
My daughter receives correspondence from her daughter's school this time of the year. First year kids at school get some sort of registration material.
Nothiing complicated.

This is exactly what should have been written in the first place. Clean and simple and improving the system for the better.

WOuld there still be the A team restrictions?

[elliott70]

The amendment would make it simple at least for this year....

Register where you live or inthe association where the player's school is located.
Validation for school would simply take some form of letter correspondence indicating the player was attending a particular school.
My daughter receives correspondence from her daughter's school this time of the year. First year kids at school get some sort of registration material.
Nothiing complicated.

This is exactly what should have been written in the first place. Clean and simple and improving the system for the better.

WOuld there still be the A team restrictions?

No restrictions.
Go and play.

[Community Based]

The key word there is, "go."

Are you suggesting total free agency. Open enroll in any hockey association? I don't think so but your suggested partial remedy is no solution.

I'll ask again, since no one on the forum was willing to be honest regarding real motivation, why are we dismantling the community based youth hockey model? Who didn't it work for? I thought it was a small group of families that just can't handle the idea of not getting their way. If it's because of a frustrated DD, in one single District, then that's even worse than what I suspected. District 6 has allowed youth players to change where they play youth hockey based on open enrollment which is a high school rule not a youth rule. That was his/their mistake and poor interpretation of the rule.

Elliott, it just needs to be killed and buried forever. If it's better for anyone, based on no one clearly explaining why it's better for anyone, it appears to be, lets overhaul everything our States hockey model stands for because, what, 2-3, 5-6, people want it changed. Crazy.

No single hockey family requested this? Who did?

[jollyroger]

I generally agree that a kid should be able to choose where he plays. However, is it acceptable for a kid to go back and forth between two associations at will, year after year? When he's a first-year PW he plays for his 'home' team since they have a stronger team, then when he's a 2nd year he plays for the 'school' team when they have the better team. I assume MH decided to lock the kids into one or the other this first year so that families aren't chronically jerking around the associations like this.

I have no idea what effect the new rule will have on which associations, but it could very well be that the fluctuation could be a team's worth of kids in some places. I'd agree that the 'choice' aspect should be continued after this year for incoming Squirts--however, the part of the rule that needs to be maintained is that a kid gets 'locked' into one association once he decides. Remember, ice time gets ordered in May or June and depends on an association knowing generally who is returning in the Fall--if all of a sudden there's a big shift in numbers and there is one less team in PeeWees than planned, the association gets stuck with a bill for ice that mostly gets unused without the player fees to cover it. There aren't a lot of associations that could weather that kind of hit year after year. Likewise, if you have to add a team at the last minute, everybody will suffer with a shortage of ice time.

My opinion: keep the choice for incoming Squirts, but nail them down once they choose.

[HockeyDad41]

delete

[Community Based]

Why do you say, "it just ain't going to happen." What do you know that everyone else doesn't?

Clearly a big mistake opposed by a mass majority and you're saying leadership can't fix it? Seems mysterious. Leadership is in place to serve membership and it's desires. The majority of membership has made their wishes clear. The majority says, play with the association/affiliate who's boundaries encompass where your family resides. Easy, done.

Could this entire confusing rule be put forth, and passed, just so the real desired rule (Elliott's thoughts which is even worse) gets put in place now as a solution? The smell is getting worse.

We had a rule that worked for the vast majority forever. Why fix what isn't broken.

[HockeyDad41]

delete

[elliott70]

The key word there is, "go."

Are you suggesting total free agency. Open enroll in any hockey association? I don't think so but your suggested partial remedy is no solution.

I'll ask again, since no one on the forum was willing to be honest regarding real motivation, why are we dismantling the community based youth hockey model? Who didn't it work for? I thought it was a small group of families that just can't handle the idea of not getting their way. If it's because of a frustrated DD, in one single District, then that's even worse than what I suspected. District 6 has allowed youth players to change where they play youth hockey based on open enrollment which is a high school rule not a youth rule. That was his/their mistake and poor interpretation of the rule.

Elliott, it just needs to be killed and buried forever. If it's better for anyone, based on no one clearly explaining why it's better for anyone, it appears to be, lets overhaul everything our States hockey model stands for because, what, 2-3, 5-6, people want it changed. Crazy.

No single hockey family requested this? Who did?

In d16 we play where you live and if circumstances are such that it is better to waive, we waive. D16 would like the rest of the state to be as easy as we have it here, but we know that is not possible. (D16 did vote no).

But there is a push for movement and it will happen one way or another based on what has already passed. Some of us want to make it clear and simple.

My idea (and presented in what seems like a life time ago) was to allow mites 7 & under to make an election to change based on school district that was permanent through squirts. First year pee-wees would ahve the same option through bantams.

[elliott70]

The key word there is, "go."

Are you suggesting total free agency. Open enroll in any hockey association? I don't think so but your suggested partial remedy is no solution.

I'll ask again, since no one on the forum was willing to be honest regarding real motivation, why are we dismantling the community based youth hockey model? Who didn't it work for? I thought it was a small group of families that just can't handle the idea of not getting their way. If it's because of a frustrated DD, in one single District, then that's even worse than what I suspected. District 6 has allowed youth players to change where they play youth hockey based on open enrollment which is a high school rule not a youth rule. That was his/their mistake and poor interpretation of the rule.

Elliott, it just needs to be killed and buried forever. If it's better for anyone, based on no one clearly explaining why it's better for anyone, it appears to be, lets overhaul everything our States hockey model stands for because, what, 2-3, 5-6, people want it changed. Crazy.

No single hockey family requested this? Who did?

In d16 we play where you live and if circumstances are such that it is better to waive, we waive. D16 would like the rest of the state to be as easy as we have it here, but we know that is not possible. (D16 did vote no).

But there is a push for movement and it will happen one way or another based on what has already passed. Some of us want to make it clear and simple.

My idea (and presented in what seems like a life time ago) was to allow mites 7 & under to make an election to change based on school district that was permanent through squirts. First year pee-wees would ahve the same option through bantams.

[Hockeydaddy]

Unless the rule is "Play Where You Live" it really doesn't matter, people will find a way around things. Make whatever convoluted rule you wnt.

Play where you live, period.

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

[quote="SWPrez"]I'd be there. I am sure virtually all District 1 association Presidents or representatives would be there.

I would think associations like Kennedy, Orono, Mound-Westonka, and others would want to be in attendance too.[/quote]

i got your backl Prez...heck i voted for you !

[mnhcp]

Unless the rule is "Play Where You Live" it really doesn't matter, people will find a way around things. Make whatever convoluted rule you want.

Play where you live, period.

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

Though the rule doesn't affect our family it's reasons like this post which necessitate this rule. Typical closed mindedness.

If your kids only friends are in school, you're probably doing him a favor by getting him more friends.

I do agree with you here though.

There are 2 sides to this and the rule as intended or the rule as written offers a little a both. The rule just needs to be clearer.

HockeyDaddy: why you so worried anyways?

HockeyDaddy: you and many others don't like these parents anyways why do you want to keep them around? Another poster said it best, "just let them go"!

[Shoot Higher]

The key word there is, "go."

Are you suggesting total free agency. Open enroll in any hockey association? I don't think so but your suggested partial remedy is no solution.

I'll ask again, since no one on the forum was willing to be honest regarding real motivation, why are we dismantling the community based youth hockey model? Who didn't it work for? I thought it was a small group of families that just can't handle the idea of not getting their way. If it's because of a frustrated DD, in one single District, then that's even worse than what I suspected. District 6 has allowed youth players to change where they play youth hockey based on open enrollment which is a high school rule not a youth rule. That was his/their mistake and poor interpretation of the rule.

Elliott, it just needs to be killed and buried forever. If it's better for anyone, based on no one clearly explaining why it's better for anyone, it appears to be, lets overhaul everything our States hockey model stands for because, what, 2-3, 5-6, people want it changed. Crazy.

No single hockey family requested this? Who did?

CB - it was me. I am the catalyst for the change. I made a few phone calls, called in a few favors, didn't really look at the big picture. I realize now that it was all a big mistake. Well, what's done is done. Can we get off the witch hunt now and figure out a way to minimize the damage to your association? No matter how often you call for the reversal of this rule, it just ain't gonna happen.

I really like the flexibility that MH gave mites. They relaxed the rule to allow mites to determine where they want to play with the idea that it would promote retention. Great idea. Let's extend that to include jollyrogers suggestion. If a mite gets in a groove at their association of residence, it would be a shame to force them to move to another association when they reach squirts.

Hockeydad41- just curious, how old are your skaters? How long have you been volunteering in your local association?

[Hockeydaddy]

>>>HockeyDaddy: why you so worried anyways?

A bubble kid. One who will get bumped from the A team in a large association when someone else's hot shot comes in. And he won't get to try out somewhere else. We don't get a "choice," since we live and go to school here.


>>>HockeyDaddy: you and many others don't like these parents anyways why do you want to keep them around? Another poster said it best, "just let them go"!

No, I don't want them coming. Play where you live.

[sorno82]

Whatever happened, there must have been some big wheels behind this rule change. It usually takes Minnhock about 3 years in a discernment committee before they make any significant decisions.

[play4fun]

Should MH hold a special meeting on the new rule?
Would those with concerns show up?

An idea has been proposed to simplify the rule and at lesat one individual has called for a special meeting.

Should MH hold a special meeting on the new rule? Yes. It would be an opportunity for those who drafted it to explain it's genesis and intent, provide a second opportunity for direct feedback to MH so that those with concerns can voice them (the first opportunity would have been at the quarterly meeting?), and/or the opportunity to revise the rule.

Would those with concerns show up? Place and time will dictate who is able to show up -- but my guess is that yes, those who are able to come will make this a priority now that the new rule is in fact in place. Sitting back behind screen names on this bored won't have an impact on the meeting, but showing up in person may.

My question is whether we should show up at the meeting with our screen names on name tags? Community Based and I can sit next to each other and drown out each other's opinion so that the real discussion can take place. (CB, just havin' fun. I respect your perseverance if nothing else.)

[greybeard58]

This was discussed at the Mn January meeting and moved to committee where there were different committees making changes. When the Spring meeting was held it was discussed again and moved to the rules committee and the other committees. The June meeting it was publicized just what was up for discussion and a long and lengthy debate was held and on the Sunday meeting some tried to change the language again.

So if no one outside of Mn Hockey attended the last 3 meetings just how many will take the time now to attend a special meeting if held, which might or might not happen.

Also how many will take the time to attend the fall meeting in September details in another thread and on the Mn Hockey web site.

[playwithyourgrade]

This was discussed at the Mn January meeting and moved to committee where there were different committees making changes. When the Spring meeting was held it was discussed again and moved to the rules committee and the other committees. The June meeting it was publicized just what was up for discussion and a long and lengthy debate was held and on the Sunday meeting some tried to change the language again.

So if no one outside of Mn Hockey attended the last 3 meetings just how many will take the time now to attend a special meeting if held, which might or might not happen.

Also how many will take the time to attend the fall meeting in September details in another thread and on the Mn Hockey web site.

sometimes those that have tried to open ideas to mh have fallen on deaf ears.

[greybeard58]

Playwithyourgrade,
If a player wants to play up that is up to the association Mn Hockey does not have a rule. To play down and be older than the age group has a whole bunch of requirements set by USA Hockey.