District 6 Bantam Games

Maverick1999 · Post by **Maverick1999** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:54 am

What is everyone thoughts on District 6 shortening Bantam A district games from 90 minutes to 75 minutes? 3 14 minutes stop time periods without a flood. Are any other districts shortening their game times?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:08 am

D16 - we play 3 17 minute stop time periods with one resurface.
For all bantam and peewee games.

Chuck Norris Fan · Post by **Chuck Norris Fan** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:23 am

My guess is you will see even more kids head for HS. The draw for staying in Bantams at the A level is more ice time games and opportunities in PP, PK and Leadership. Reducing times like this only makes parents more eagar to get to HS for more practice and game time and less $$$$. As most districts are trying to move toward 3 / 17 stops and a flood, D-6 is going the opposite direction.

Why don't you just play hour games with no time on the clock, don't switch ends and when the zamboni door opens up..ding ding game over.

OnFrozenPond · Post by **OnFrozenPond** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:12 pm

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:My guess is you will see even more kids head for HS. The draw for staying in Bantams at the A level is more ice time games and opportunities in PP, PK and Leadership. Reducing times like this only makes parents more eagar to get to HS for more practice and game time and less $$$$. As most districts are trying to move toward 3 / 17 stops and a flood, D-6 is going the opposite direction.

Why don't you just play hour games with no time on the clock, don't switch ends and when the zamboni door opens up..ding ding game over.

Actual game times have not been reduced. They simply eliminated the resurface afeter the 2nd period.

I received an email chain that basically said MH told D6 that they couldn't have any differences between how U14A games and Bantam A games were scheduled. They both play the same lentgh of game, but U14A uses 75 minute slots without a resurface. The Bantam A uses a 90 minute slot with a resurface.

I guess it was easier/cheaper to cut the resurface from the Bantam A than to add the resurface to the U14A. I think this whole thing is silly and potentially dangerous. The boys at this level do much more damage to the ice during the course of a game than the girls.

Maverick1999 · Post by **Maverick1999** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:29 pm

I agree there is not difference in actual time on the ice, but why is D6 the only district that MN Hockey is making do this?

Chuck Norris Fan · Post by **Chuck Norris Fan** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:47 pm

Maverick1999 wrote:I agree there is not difference in actual time on the ice, but why is D6 the only district that MN Hockey is making do this?

Too many Lawyers in D6!!

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:03 pm

Last year a grievance came forth about discrepancy between bantams and 14U teams.

MH told EVERYONE that you cannot discriminate.

In D16 our 14U & 12U teams play 3, 15 minute stop time periods with one resurface.
Bantams and peewees 17 minutes.

We are not discriminating....
the girls coaches requested shorter games as they have fewer players and do not wnat the longer game times.

D6 (or any district) has a valid argument for playing a different game for youth versus girls. For starters they have different rules. boys at bantam age are bigger and faster. Comparing 14U to bantams is an apple and orange thing.
If all D6 did was take away the resurface that is wrong...
just ask any zamboni driver... who needs resurfacing and who does not...
it is not discrimintating it is using common sense.

But as Chuck said, "attorneys".

There must be a need for them, but just cannot put my finger on it right now.

Yakunin · Post by **Yakunin** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:08 pm

I heard a family who is a big time lawyer from District 5 is threatning to sue Mn Hockey if they did not change the rule to equal time as the U14 girls. This family has 4 girls. Do the u14 girls chew up the ice as much as the Bantams? I think NOT

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:15 pm

Yakunin wrote:I heard a family who is a big time lawyer from District 5 is threatning to sue Mn Hockey if they did not change the rule to equal time as the U14 girls. This family has 4 girls. Do the u14 girls chew up the ice as much as the Bantams? I think NOT

MH cannot dictate how individual districts run their leagues.

But yes it was a D5 perosn.

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:35 pm

Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.

council member retired · Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:01 pm

[quote="elliott70"]
If all D6 did was take away the resurface that is wrong...
just ask any zamboni driver... who needs resurfacing and who does not...
it is not discrimintating it is using [b]common sense[/b].

Do you think board members of D6 consulted anyone on this, or just said we will make them all the same. It would be unfortunate if common sense wasn't used.

dump and chase · Post by **dump and chase** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:37 pm

Another bonehead move on behalf of D6, it now turns into a saftey issue for bantam A players who are one step away from high school hockey. the condition of the ice after two periods is terrible as is not to mention not having a reserface for the whole game. I hope that no serious injuries take place becasue of a Title IX issue.

This issue should be put back to the way it was before, it would make more sence to me to keep the resurface for both groups of players (bantam A and U14) and add the two mins to the girls games.

Good luck and may the bad bounces of bad ice not determine to many games this year.

blueliner5 · Post by **blueliner5** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:00 pm

dogeatdog1 wrote:Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.

Hmmmmm....let's see D10 took away the scrimmages for all teams due to a infraction by a Girls youth team. Now D6 takes the Zamboni away from the boys Bantam teams so not to discriminate against the girls. "Dogeatdog1" good idea about the checking, but I think it will probably be reversed the other way "The boys are not allowed to check" due to the fact girls are allowed to play on boys youth teams and are not allowed to be checked. I bet the attorneys minds are spinning now

AimHigh · Post by **AimHigh** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:03 am

blueliner5 wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.
Hmmmmm....let's see D10 took away the scrimmages for all teams due to a infraction by a Girls youth team. Now D6 takes the Zamboni away from the boys Bantam teams so not to discriminate against the girls. "Dogeatdog1" good idea about the checking, but I think it will probably be reversed the other way "The boys are not allowed to check" due to the fact girls are allowed to play on boys youth teams and are not allowed to be checked. I bet the attorneys minds are spinning now

The only heads spinning are the boneheads that blame everything as the girls/attorneys fault.

Bunch of whiners. I propose the boys play ringette and figure skate for 20 years or so before they are allowed to play hockey. Just to even things up. Or how about giving the girls an extra 15 minutes of ice time than boys from U10 on up. Just to even things up. Wouldn't hear a peep from the boys side, no threatened lawsuit from a boys' family. Yeah, right.

How does checking, size and speed validate a longer game time? The MSHL did not buy that argument when they moved the girls state championship to the X. Perhaps MN Hockey will mandate equal game time for Bantams/U14 because its discriminatory not to do so. Duh.

Really...just a dumb move by D6 to address an easily remedied issue.

OnFrozenPond · Post by **OnFrozenPond** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:38 pm

AimHigh wrote:
blueliner5 wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.
Hmmmmm....let's see D10 took away the scrimmages for all teams due to a infraction by a Girls youth team. Now D6 takes the Zamboni away from the boys Bantam teams so not to discriminate against the girls. "Dogeatdog1" good idea about the checking, but I think it will probably be reversed the other way "The boys are not allowed to check" due to the fact girls are allowed to play on boys youth teams and are not allowed to be checked. I bet the attorneys minds are spinning now
The only heads spinning are the boneheads that blame everything as the girls/attorneys fault.

Bunch of whiners. I propose the boys play ringette and figure skate for 20 years or so before they are allowed to play hockey. Just to even things up. Or how about giving the girls an extra 15 minutes of ice time than boys from U10 on up. Just to even things up. Wouldn't hear a peep from the boys side, no threatened lawsuit from a boys' family. Yeah, right.

How does checking, size and speed validate a longer game time? The MSHL did not buy that argument when they moved the girls state championship to the X. Perhaps MN Hockey will mandate equal game time for Bantams/U14 because its discriminatory not to do so. Duh.

Really...just a dumb move by D6 to address an easily remedied issue.

The issue is that it is a luxury for one, but a necessity for the other.

I agree though that the best solution would have been to simply add the resurface it to the girls games along with the added expense for the extra time. Problem solved.

Puckhead631 · Post by **Puckhead631** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:56 am

D6 has added the resurface back in to the Bantam A games. They will address this issue on 75 minute 14A games and 90 minute BA games with a resurface.

Both BA and 14A games are 3 14 minute stop time periods - they are equal in actual game and ice time length for this season (and have been for many years).

All of the District 6 games (all levels except 14U A & B) were scheduled a few weeks ago. By adding a resurface to the 14UA schedules, the district would have had to make scheduling adjustments to more than 150 games at other levels. Since the vast majority of the Bantam A games are at the end of the evening, that change did not have a significant impact on the other levels of play.

D6 did reacted as a result of a mandate from MH to make BA and 14UA games equal when it came to the ice resurface for the BA's and 14UA's.

Hats off to D6 as they did listen to the associations presidents, coaches, and parents, and when reviewed, they did the right thing and corrected the issue.

Yes - D6 has/had many attorney's to help counsel them over the years on equality and D6 has always worked hard to keep things equal between the boys and girls.

theref · Post by **theref** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:52 pm

dogeatdog1 wrote:Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.

Great statement, I applaud you!

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:22 pm

Maverick1999 wrote:I agree there is not difference in actual time on the ice, but why is D6 the only district that MN Hockey is making do this?

MH is not making D6 do anything.
MH passed a rule - how the rule is interpeted and implemented is the issue.
In D16 we have (long before MH passed a rule) dealt with this issue and have a workable solution.
I would suggest that the D6 board needs to take a hard look at girls hockey and youth hockey. What is appropriate for one group may not be the same as another group.
Do we treat bantams and squirts differently?
Of course.

Maverick1999 · Post by **Maverick1999** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:28 pm

D6 had a meeting and decided to go back to 90 minute games for BA district games.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:44 pm

AimHigh wrote:
blueliner5 wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:Great Idea ,,,, lets not discriminate.. let the girls check ... let the boys play with the girls and see how many girls come out for hockey. I wish I was an attorney and that I had an idiotic mind to make crap up like this so my daughters could kick butt on the the daughters of atty that thought this lawsuit up. I also hope that he goes home each night and talks to his daughter about how to ruin everyone elses life by thinking of yourself.
Hmmmmm....let's see D10 took away the scrimmages for all teams due to a infraction by a Girls youth team. Now D6 takes the Zamboni away from the boys Bantam teams so not to discriminate against the girls. "Dogeatdog1" good idea about the checking, but I think it will probably be reversed the other way "The boys are not allowed to check" due to the fact girls are allowed to play on boys youth teams and are not allowed to be checked. I bet the attorneys minds are spinning now
The only heads spinning are the boneheads that blame everything as the girls/attorneys fault.

Bunch of whiners. I propose the boys play ringette and figure skate for 20 years or so before they are allowed to play hockey. Just to even things up. Or how about giving the girls an extra 15 minutes of ice time than boys from U10 on up. Just to even things up. Wouldn't hear a peep from the boys side, no threatened lawsuit from a boys' family. Yeah, right.

How does checking, size and speed validate a longer game time? The MSHL did not buy that argument when they moved the girls state championship to the X. Perhaps MN Hockey will mandate equal game time for Bantams/U14 because its discriminatory not to do so. Duh.

Really...just a dumb move by D6 to address an easily remedied issue.

Girls have been playing hockey for a long time in MN...
and in some communities on girls teams back into the 70's and 80's.
Your idea of rewarding or penalizing because of what society accepted as the standard in the 70's, 60's and earlier is not valid.

It is not discriminatory to treat different groups in a different manner.
If there is basis for treating groups different than they should be.
And yes it was an attorney that brought this to the forefront.

DUH????

In D6 it is not game time it is resurfacing.
Bantams should be resurfaced.
I can't answer the question if D6 14U should have a resurface but based on northern teams its possible. We do resurface in D16.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:51 pm

elliott70 wrote:
Maverick1999 wrote:I agree there is not difference in actual time on the ice, but why is D6 the only district that MN Hockey is making do this?
MH is not making D6 do anything.
MH passed a rule - how the rule is interpeted and implemented is the issue.
In D16 we have (long before MH passed a rule) dealt with this issue and have a workable solution.
I would suggest that the D6 board needs to take a hard look at girls hockey and youth hockey. What is appropriate for one group may not be the same as another group.
Do we treat bantams and squirts differently?
Of course.

Good for D6 on making the adjustment.