suspension for receiving a minor

puckster99 · Post by **puckster99** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:02 pm

Does anyone know if a player received a "minor" before the Hockey season starts and for the first offense has to sit out two weeks or 2 events, whichever is greater, does the two weeks start from the first game of that teams season or the first day as a team (after tryouts)

Thanks

CC Combat · Post by **CC Combat** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 pm

Im pretty sure it starts after regular team practices begin..Why??? Did you get into a little trouble over the summer buddy?

puckster99 · Post by **puckster99** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:00 pm

Ha, nope, I stopped playing in 1985, I was wondering if my son might get some more game time due to someone being stupid.

CC Combat · Post by **CC Combat** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:09 pm

Ah alright..well im sure he'll get to see the ice a little more now. Playing time is playing time..doesnt matter how you come across it!!

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:30 pm

Two weeks or two games, whichever is greater.

If the incident happened before the season, the clock starts ticking at the time of the incident. That means he'll miss the first two games of the season.

If it happens during the season, he'll miss however many games are scheduled during the two weeks.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:13 pm

hockeydad wrote:Two weeks or two games, whichever is greater.

If the incident happened before the season, the clock starts ticking at the time of the incident. That means he'll miss the first two games of the season.

If it happens during the season, he'll miss however many games are scheduled during the two weeks.

Maybe i misunderstood your post but the clock does not start at the time of the incident. If it occurs in the off season it starts when the official season begins. This means that if a team has two weeks of practice before an official game occurs then the player misses nothing, unless the coach has them sit out practice, which is uncommon. They can tryout, and practice, but not play in games for two weeks, or two games, whichever is longer.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:24 am

If it happened in the summer and the player also was in fall sports,the suspension would start there and not wait until the hockey season.

western · Post by **western** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:38 am

SEcoach:

You are not correct on reading the rule. It is two weeks or two games, whichever is longer, not shorter. Assuming the kid didn't play a fall sport and sit out two contests, as Greybeard mentioned, then the clock does not start with practice. The key part of the rule is "athletic contests." The rule says the kid will miss two contests or two weeks, whichever is longer. Assume a team starts practice on November 18 and has a game Dec. 3 and one Dec. 10. Missing those first two games is longer than the first two weeks of practice. Therefore, he sits the two games -- he can still do the practice and tryouts because they are not considered contests. If he had a game Dec. 3, 8 and 15, he would miss three games because they fell in the two week period. Everyone clear on that?

western · Post by **western** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:49 am

Oops. My fault. I didn't read my response clearly. They would NOT miss the three games in the last example I have. They met the two game or contest rule and that happened over several weeks so they are clear.

dakotakid · Post by **dakotakid** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:05 pm

you have to be kidding. two weeks is a joke. In ND it's 6 weeks for the first and 18 weeks for the second and three strikes your out.

keepmeoutofit · Post by **keepmeoutofit** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:59 pm

prioritys

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm

Western you are right....late night....my bad.

Goldfishdude · Post by **Goldfishdude** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:05 pm

dakotakid wrote:you have to be kidding. two weeks is a joke. In ND it's 6 weeks for the first and 18 weeks for the second and three strikes your out.

Dakota kid..... I guess you don't get it... It's that way in ND, because during winter months, the state uses all the drunk athletes to shovel all the drifts on the highways, and they need 6 weeks for each snowfall for removal.

As my close personal friend, Larry the Cable Guy, would say... "I don't care who you are.. that's funny!"

western · Post by **western** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:12 pm

What I think is interesting is the rule doesn't differentiate between alcohol offenses. For example, one kid could be picked up at a house party, blow a .02 or something really low and get a minor. Another kid could get picked up with a .20 while driving a car and the punishment is the same. That strikes me as being a bit odd.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:20 pm

I once taught at a school that had a guilt by association rule. If you were with a student who was smoking or drinking, the penalty applied to you to, even if you weren't.

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:31 pm

western wrote:What I think is interesting is the rule doesn't differentiate between alcohol offenses. For example, one kid could be picked up at a house party, blow a .02 or something really low and get a minor. Another kid could get picked up with a .20 while driving a car and the punishment is the same. That strikes me as being a bit odd.

I would guess if the kid blew .20 while driving. Playing any high school sport is the least of the problems the kid has.
If he played on my team, no matter how good. Your done, no questions asked. You would be an embarrassment to the school, program and yourself.
Best idea is to tell kids to forget the drinking and drugs. There will be plenty of time to be an idiot when you are done playing. And yes they are plain and simple idiots. I was when I was in high school.....

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:44 pm

The kid can opt for a treatment program and not have to serve ANY penalty.

western · Post by **western** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:03 am

Really? I didn't see that in the MHSL handbook. Is that specified somewhere? Does it apply to any alcohol or chemical offense?

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am

What I think is interesting is the rule doesn't differentiate between alcohol offenses. For example, one kid could be picked up at a house party, blow a .02 or something really low and get a minor. Another kid could get picked up with a .20 while driving a car and the punishment is the same. That strikes me as being a bit odd.

how is this a bit odd? I believe the legal drinking age in this state is 21. You don't get to have a certain number of beers if you are under 21. You legally get to have ZERO beers. Why should the punishment be different for 1 beer or 10 beers?

western · Post by **western** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:30 am

It's a bit odd in the sense that driving a vehicle while intoxicated is by orders of magnitude a far more serious offense in society than having a beer or two as a minor -- thus the legal implaction of DUI vs. a minor consumption and the penalty difference the law applies, yet the MSHL treats them one in the same.

Thus, my point. A bit odd.

lxhockey · Post by **lxhockey** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:15 am

Please review //www.mshsl.org/mshsl/publications/code ... ?ne=6.pdf

Both athlete and parent had to sign these forms which spells out the rules and violations of the rules. These are nothing new and have been the rules for quite some time.

western · Post by **western** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:50 am

Who said they were new?

I stated I had not seen that you could get the penalty waived in an alcohol case if you agreed to undergo treatment, as someone earlier posted. That was my point of my post. I asked where in the handbook or the rules this was stated. In fact, it clearly states there is no exception for someone who does this, at least not on the first or second offense.

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:47 pm

It's a bit odd in the sense that driving a vehicle while intoxicated is by orders of magnitude a far more serious offense in society than having a beer or two as a minor -- thus the legal implaction of DUI vs. a minor consumption and the penalty difference the law applies, yet the MSHL treats them one in the same.

Thus, my point. A bit odd.

The difference is that the LAW differenciates levels of alcohol consumption for someone over 21 while driving.

The LAW does not allow for different levels of consumption for minors. The LAW is that a person under the age of 21 may not drink ANY alcohol.

You can't compare the 2. Over 21 = legallaly allowed to drink. Therefore there are different allowances made for level of consumption.

Under 21 = illigal to drink. How can any group make allowances for levels of consumption when any consumptiona at all is illegal?

I just don't see how this is odd at all. It is based on Law.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:21 pm

hockeyboys wrote:
It's a bit odd in the sense that driving a vehicle while intoxicated is by orders of magnitude a far more serious offense in society than having a beer or two as a minor -- thus the legal implaction of DUI vs. a minor consumption and the penalty difference the law applies, yet the MSHL treats them one in the same.

Thus, my point. A bit odd.
The difference is that the LAW differenciates levels of alcohol consumption for someone over 21 while driving.

The LAW does not allow for different levels of consumption for minors. The LAW is that a person under the age of 21 may not drink ANY alcohol.

You can't compare the 2. Over 21 = legallaly allowed to drink. Therefore there are different allowances made for level of consumption.

Under 21 = illigal to drink. How can any group make allowances for levels of consumption when any consumptiona at all is illegal?

I just don't see how this is odd at all. It is based on Law.

Not entirely true. The LAW for an open bottle, for example, would also apply to a minor, in addition to the possession charge. So would a driving under the influence, subject to the same .08 minimum.

I can see western's point, in that maybe high schools SHOULD have different levels of penalities based on the offense committed, just as the LAW does. If an adult gets charged with a DUI he or she would be in a lot more trouble than "just" being charged with an open bottle (possession in the passenger area of a motor vehicle). By the same token, maybe the MSHSL should differentiate between a DUI, for example, compared to having a beer at a party where driving is not involved.

western · Post by **western** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:25 pm

Thanks for the clarification on the point I am making.

No one is disputing what the law is. The point is, some offenses are more serious when it comes to alcohol than others, judging by how the offender is treated. Not all alcohol offenses are treated equally under THE LAW.

Under the high school league, all alcohol offenses ARE treated equally. Again, that is odd to me. That's my opinion. I find it funny you are trying to change it.