Subway, think fresh, eat fresh...any predictions?

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:04 pm

One thing that was painfully obvious is that the so-called "Bernie Rule" should be enacted in more tournaments. Watched the Alberta Brick team play both the Blades and Machine at the 00 level and it was comical how every single time an Alberta kid got hit, he would lay there until the whistle was blown. Then, once the whistle was blown, the kid managed to get up and skate to the bench, and never miss a shift. Happened in the Blades quarterfinal loss where they had possession in offensive zone, Alberta kid goes down, ref blows the whistle to kill the play, and then immidiately the kid gets up and skates away. Happened twice to the Orange in the semis, taking away two great scoring chances for them as well. It became obvious that the players had been "coached" up a bit and some version of the "Bernie Rule" would wipe this problem out. I don't think anyone wants the game to continue if a kid is actually hurt, but every time it happened this weekend, the kid got up and skated away once the whistle was blown.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:24 pm

ThePuckStopsHere wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:
Pylon wrote:Our teams by division
2003
Mn Made Gold 2-2-1
Mn Made Blue 0-5-0

2002
Mn Machine 2-2-1
Mn Blades 0-5-0

2001
Mn Machine 3-3-0

2000
Mn Machine 5-0-0
Mn Blades 3-2-0

1999
Mn Machine 5-1-0
Mn Blades 2-3-0

1998
Mn Machine 1-4-0
Mn Blades 3-3-0
Mn Icemen 0-5-0

1997
Mn Machine 3-2-0
Mn Blades 3-2-0

Combined overall totals:
Mn Machine 21-19-2 (including 03 split teams)
Mn Blades 11-15-0

I think the above numbers shows just how tough the competition up there was! Good job to all who brought some hardware back home!
Minnesota's 2000 age group is a special one.
Really how special can a bunch of 10 year olds be Do you have your sons college all picked out?

Don't lose sight this is summer hockey, means NOTHING other than to the guy's cashing your checks

These things happen.....

The 2000's are a very dominant and deep group.

Proof is in the pudding

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:51 pm

Deep Breath wrote:One thing that was painfully obvious is that the so-called "Bernie Rule" should be enacted in more tournaments. Watched the Alberta Brick team play both the Blades and Machine at the 00 level and it was comical how every single time an Alberta kid got hit, he would lay there until the whistle was blown. Then, once the whistle was blown, the kid managed to get up and skate to the bench, and never miss a shift. Happened in the Blades quarterfinal loss where they had possession in offensive zone, Alberta kid goes down, ref blows the whistle to kill the play, and then immidiately the kid gets up and skates away. Happened twice to the Orange in the semis, taking away two great scoring chances for them as well. It became obvious that the players had been "coached" up a bit and some version of the "Bernie Rule" would wipe this problem out. I don't think anyone wants the game to continue if a kid is actually hurt, but every time it happened this weekend, the kid got up and skated away once the whistle was blown.

I don't see the problem. Take a dive and you put your team a man down. There is no guarantee when or if the whistle will be blown. Very little potential benefit and a very big downside. If diving was a good strategy you'd see it all the time.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:54 pm

Deep Breath wrote:One thing that was painfully obvious is that the so-called "Bernie Rule" should be enacted in more tournaments. Watched the Alberta Brick team play both the Blades and Machine at the 00 level and it was comical how every single time an Alberta kid got hit, he would lay there until the whistle was blown. Then, once the whistle was blown, the kid managed to get up and skate to the bench, and never miss a shift. Happened in the Blades quarterfinal loss where they had possession in offensive zone, Alberta kid goes down, ref blows the whistle to kill the play, and then immidiately the kid gets up and skates away. Happened twice to the Orange in the semis, taking away two great scoring chances for them as well. It became obvious that the players had been "coached" up a bit and some version of the "Bernie Rule" would wipe this problem out. I don't think anyone wants the game to continue if a kid is actually hurt, but every time it happened this weekend, the kid got up and skated away once the whistle was blown.

Diving is not a good strategy and just because one team MAY or MAY NOT have some kids doing this on pupose (being coached to do it seems unlikely, kids are probably just drama queens and do it on their own without coaches approval) is no reason to punish the overwhelming majority of teams that do not do this. Could not disagree with you more on this issue.

Eric1984 · Post by **Eric1984** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:08 pm

I think the MN rule is good for younger kids (7-9 maybe) because a lot of them do fall and out of frustration (mostly because they didn't score) decide not to get up. The rule is a good reminder about the importance of good sportsmanship and the consequences of faking it.

At 10-11 though it becomes less of an issue (chalk it up to greater maturity and also not wanting the opponent to think you're hurt); I don't recall at this tournament seeing any deliberate attempts to stay down. There was a Machine player who went down during the gold medal game but I think he was hurt on the play even though I'm pretty sure he didn't miss a shift.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:41 pm

[quote="luckyEPDad"][quote="Deep Breath"]One thing that was painfully obvious is that the so-called "Bernie Rule" should be enacted in more tournaments. Watched the Alberta Brick team play both the Blades and Machine at the 00 level and it was comical how every single time an Alberta kid got hit, he would lay there until the whistle was blown. Then, once the whistle was blown, the kid managed to get up and skate to the bench, and never miss a shift. Happened in the Blades quarterfinal loss where they had possession in offensive zone, Alberta kid goes down, ref blows the whistle to kill the play, and then immidiately the kid gets up and skates away. Happened twice to the Orange in the semis, taking away two great scoring chances for them as well. It became obvious that the players had been "coached" up a bit and some version of the "Bernie Rule" would wipe this problem out. I don't think anyone wants the game to continue if a kid is actually hurt, but every time it happened this weekend, the kid got up and skated away once the whistle was blown.[/quote]

I don't see the problem. Take a dive and you put your team a man down. There is no guarantee when or if the whistle will be blown. Very little potential benefit and a very big downside. If diving was a good strategy you'd see it all the time.[/quote]

I would agree but the whistle was blown every time regardless of which team controlled the puck.

If a kid is really hurt, sitting for 5-7 game minutes is not a bad thing. Allows him time to recover. If he isn't hurt, then it hurts the team by making him sit for 5-7 game minutes and will be a deterrent from others on the team from doing it. You were obviously not witness to what went on in winnipeg this weekend because it was obvious and blatant. Maybe wouldn't have been so bad if not for every time the whistle was blown, the kid didn't get up on his own and skate to the bench.

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:38 am

Deep Breath wrote: You were obviously not witness to what went on in winnipeg this weekend because it was obvious and blatant. Maybe wouldn't have been so bad if not for every time the whistle was blown, the kid didn't get up on his own and skate to the bench.

According to USA Hockey rules the ref has the option to "have a talk" with the coach about this behavior. They also have discretion about when to blow the whistle. I think that up in Canada they can actually call a diving penalty. I wonder if it was as blatant as you percieved. An interesting thing about hockey is all your opponents cheat and all refs are out to get you.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:52 am

No, I get that. The "parents are whiners and everybody's against us" argument is always presuasive. My question is what is the main problem with the so-called "Bernie rule"? If a player takes a check, lays on the ice to the point where the ref has to stop play and a coach is summoned from the bench, isn't it maybe the prudent thing to do to have that kid sit for 5 minutes to ensure that he is physically ready to go back out on the ice? USA Hockey thinks so much of safety that they have altered the game at the PeeWee level for the foreseeable furture because of it. But, if the kid is not really hurt, sitting for 5-7 game minutes is a great deterrent from others on the team from doing the same thing. Just don't know what the down side of the rule would be.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:23 am

Maybe 5 mins since you worded it like that. Bernie's was 10.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:05 am

Deep Breath wrote:No, I get that. The "parents are whiners and everybody's against us" argument is always presuasive. My question is what is the main problem with the so-called "Bernie rule"? If a player takes a check, lays on the ice to the point where the ref has to stop play and a coach is summoned from the bench, isn't it maybe the prudent thing to do to have that kid sit for 5 minutes to ensure that he is physically ready to go back out on the ice? USA Hockey thinks so much of safety that they have altered the game at the PeeWee level for the foreseeable furture because of it. But, if the kid is not really hurt, sitting for 5-7 game minutes is a great deterrent from others on the team from doing the same thing. Just don't know what the down side of the rule would be.

Sounds like a pretty hardline rule for little kids when they don't even have anything like it in the pros or college.

Kids popping up without taking the time to see how severe their injuries are is the problem I see. What you will have is injured kids, of different severity, trying to gimp back to the bench(lawsuit). Afterall, it is a penalty in Bernies(10 minutes

) way of thinking to take a moment to figure out how hurt they are. Are they robots, or kids?

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:30 am

I don't see it as "hardline". If a kid is hurt enough or shaken up enough to lay on the ice long enough to stop play and have a coach attend to him or her, is it so bad to have that kid sit for 5 game minutes (probably 1 shift if the team has 3+ lines) so the coach and/or EMT can take a better look at him/her to make sure he/she is ready to play again? I don't see that as being a bad rule. 10 minuutes may be excessive, but I don't see the rule as being "hardline".

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:37 am

Deep Breath wrote:I don't see it as "hardline". If a kid is hurt enough or shaken up enough to lay on the ice long enough to stop play and have a coach attend to him or her, is it so bad to have that kid sit for 5 game minutes (probably 1 shift if the team has 3+ lines) so the coach and/or EMT can take a better look at him/her to make sure he/she is ready to play again? I don't see that as being a bad rule. 10 minuutes may be excessive, but I don't see the rule as being "hardline".

Does the EMT have to come out for the rule to take effect? It's excessive if it's just for a whistle.

A player is only making his team a man short for 10 -20 seconds by trying to fake an injury.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:59 am

If a coach and/or EMT has to come on the ice, yes, I would say the player sits for 5 mns to make sure he/she is ready to return. We're talking one shift, maybe two. I can appreciate the notion that a player can put his team short by "faking", but the issue this past weekend in Winnipeg was that the whistle was being blown almost immediately after the player would lay on the ice, regardless of where the puck was or which team possessed it. There was no "20-seconds" of playing a skater down, as it was put.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:24 am

Deep Breath wrote:If a coach and/or EMT has to come on the ice, yes, I would say the player sits for 5 mns to make sure he/she is ready to return. We're talking one shift, maybe two. I can appreciate the notion that a player can put his team short by "faking", but the issue this past weekend in Winnipeg was that the whistle was being blown almost immediately after the player would lay on the ice, regardless of where the puck was or which team possessed it. There was no "20-seconds" of playing a skater down, as it was put.

Maybe one shift would solve these problems? Take the time to assess the player without punishing them? It would seem a lot more sane than Bernies quarter of a game for a kid just trying to get his bearings back.

Safety or Punishment?

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:53 am

Deep Breath wrote:If a coach and/or EMT has to come on the ice, yes, I would say the player sits for 5 mns to make sure he/she is ready to return. We're talking one shift, maybe two. I can appreciate the notion that a player can put his team short by "faking", but the issue this past weekend in Winnipeg was that the whistle was being blown almost immediately after the player would lay on the ice, regardless of where the puck was or which team possessed it. There was no "20-seconds" of playing a skater down, as it was put.

Sounds more like a problem with the refs and or that one team. I was in Winnipeg this weekend, had son playing at the 2000 AAA level and I saw nothing like that nor nothing that would warrant a rule like that. I have been involved in games where I did think the opposition was faking injury to stop play for teh benefit of his or her own side, I still don;t think sitting said player for 10 minutes is a worthwhile idea. It is few and far between that this occurs and they are 10 years old or younger. I say it's 10 year old hockey, there are alot worse things in this world to worry about.

Also, I don't know what is so unthinkable about a kid getting hurt on the ice and needing a minute and not missign a shift? You ever have the wind knocked out of you. Hurts like the dickens for a couple of minutes then you are fine. So a kid gets the wind knowcked out of him, lays on the ice in pain, ref stops play. kid eventually makes his way back to the bench. Let's assume that the team has three lines and at that age 1 minute shifts seem to be the norm (despite best intentions of wanting them shorter). Plus the stopages that occur during the game that can add up. By the time the kid's regular shift comes up it probably has been 4 minutes of "real time" (not game time) minimum by the time he hits the ice again from the time he got the wind knocked out of him. That is hardly urnealistic, in fact seems about right.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:52 pm

Question regarding the 2000 level:

Was wondering if anyone knows the teams well enough to answer this. Was just wondering at the 2000 level how the Jr. Wheatkings or Jr. Steelers would compare to the teams that entered themselves in the Super Elite level?

Would they have been like teams like the Mountain Selects or Manitoba Young Guns that basically did not win a game (except against eachother), or would they have been better than that? I was curious because I thought they were both really good teams that maybe should have been playing in that level. Anyone have any insight?

Eric1984 · Post by **Eric1984** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:55 pm

The Jr. Wheatkings and Jr. Steelers would have lost most games by 10 goals if they had gone into the super elite level. They had played the lightning once this year and the game wasn't close. The MB Young Guns really shouldn't have been in the super elite level but they were sort of stuck between elite and open in terms of ability.

Badger_Dad · Post by **Badger_Dad** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:06 pm

2000 Jr Steelers came to Independent Classic Invite earlier in year where they finished 2-3 lost to Machine Black, StE and Crush. Crush team then and in Winnipeg were fairly close in talent despite the subs due to vacations etc....

First I saw of Wheatkings but my Opinion the open teams were pretty well matched and a notch below the invite teams

Final Standings for 2000 Invite Independent Classic
Young Guns, Lk Sup Stars, StE, Machine Black, Crush, TBay Thunder, Jr Steelers, mavericks

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:55 am

Eric1984 wrote:The Jr. Wheatkings and Jr. Steelers would have lost most games by 10 goals if they had gone into the super elite level. They had played the lightning once this year and the game wasn't close. The MB Young Guns really shouldn't have been in the super elite level but they were sort of stuck between elite and open in terms of ability.

So the Wheatkings and Steelers would get beat by 10 goals by the Manitoba Young Guns, Mountain Select, Pacific Alliance and Vancouver Snipers? Or just by the Machine, Lightning, Brick Alumini, Blades and BC Young Guns? There were 12 teams in the Super Elite Level, I have a hard time believing the Steelers and Wheatkings were not roughly on par with atleast the bottom four teams I mentioned above? I can see them getting beat up on by the top 4 to 6 teams or so but the rest? Seems like both were kind of in between like the Manitoba young Guns or Mountain Selects. but again this is why I am asking, trying to learn.

Eric1984 · Post by **Eric1984** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:15 pm

I would say the top 8 in super elite would easily handle the Yguns and Wheat kings....the bottom 4 in super elite would still defeat them but they would be slightly more competitive games.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:59 pm

What happened with the '02 Blades?

I only saw one game and they looked pretty good even though they eventually lost.

Is an overhaul needed?

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:05 pm

HockeyDad41 wrote:What happened with the '02 Blades?

I only saw one game and they looked pretty good even though they eventually lost.

Is an overhaul needed?

Overhaul probably not just a 6' 4" Jr HD 41 to shore up their blueline.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:23 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:What happened with the '02 Blades?

I only saw one game and they looked pretty good even though they eventually lost.

Is an overhaul needed?

How bout that much older '98 Machine team? Shouldn't they be great now from all those miracle years at the Made? They better start flying in some kids to make their biillboard look better.

02's....? Really?

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:33 am

Sorry - I keep forgetting how sensitive you two are.

Given the storied history of the Blades organization, I was just musing at how disappointing this season must be for the 02's. They are clearly not living up to the hype. As such, I was wondering if, as in the past, the revolving door for players would be applied to this group as well. Hence the overhaul.

After losing every game in Winnipeg where they are supposed to be competitive, I think it's a fair question. This is after all the future Brick team right?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:58 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:Sorry - I keep forgetting how sensitive you two are.

Given the storied history of the Blades organization, I was just musing at how disappointing this season must be for the 02's. They are clearly not living up to the hype. As such, I was wondering if, as in the past, the revolving door for players would be applied to this group as well. Hence the overhaul.

After losing every game in Winnipeg where they are supposed to be competitive, I think it's a fair question. This is after all the future Brick team right?

Your infatuation with Blades is priceless. Maybe a certain person should take his mind off his wallet so our region could be represented like the rest?

No comment on the 98's?