Minnesota Hockey State Meeting 1/20/2012

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:11 am

It starts tonight.
Committee meetings tonight and Saturday.
Regular meeting - Sunday.

Come by and say HI!

Coffee is on me.

GoldenBear · Post by **GoldenBear** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:45 am

Elliott, don't know what agenda is, but I've seen two Bantam A games this past week....six checking from behind penalties--three each game; five of them may not have been called a month ago; one was blatant/scary to watch. I support all of them being called. When will new High School League rules be implemented at Youth level? Is this an agenda item? Enjoy meetings. GB

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:06 am

GoldenBear wrote:Elliott, don't know what agenda is, but I've seen two Bantam A games this past week....six checking from behind penalties--three each game; five of them may not have been called a month ago; one was blatant/scary to watch. I support all of them being called. When will new High School League rules be implemented at Youth level? Is this an agenda item? Enjoy meetings. GB

This is on the agenda for a committee as the whole meeting at 8 o'clock tonight.
Tons of different input from all over the place.

seek & destroy · Post by **seek & destroy** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:08 am

elliott70 wrote:
GoldenBear wrote:Elliott, don't know what agenda is, but I've seen two Bantam A games this past week....six checking from behind penalties--three each game; five of them may not have been called a month ago; one was blatant/scary to watch. I support all of them being called. When will new High School League rules be implemented at Youth level? Is this an agenda item? Enjoy meetings. GB
This is on the agenda for a committee as the whole meeting at 8 o'clock tonight.
Tons of different input from all over the place.

I would also agree that the checking from behind penalty needs to be more scrutinized at the youth level. This is where kids start to learn how to play hockey the right way.

In my opinion, to avoid having games becoming all about special teams at the youth level, they should keep the same rules, encourage refs to make the right calls and now just add that the player is automatically out for the balance of that game and the next 2 games. If a team has 3 or more in a game, the head coach is also out for 2 games and needs to go to a disciplinary hearing. The idea should be to keep players playing at the youth level not having teams play shorthanded for 5 minutes at a time.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:23 am

seek & destroy wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
GoldenBear wrote:Elliott, don't know what agenda is, but I've seen two Bantam A games this past week....six checking from behind penalties--three each game; five of them may not have been called a month ago; one was blatant/scary to watch. I support all of them being called. When will new High School League rules be implemented at Youth level? Is this an agenda item? Enjoy meetings. GB
This is on the agenda for a committee as the whole meeting at 8 o'clock tonight.
Tons of different input from all over the place.
I would also agree that the checking from behind penalty needs to be more scrutinized at the youth level. This is where kids start to learn how to play hockey the right way.

In my opinion, to avoid having games becoming all about special teams at the youth level, they should keep the same rules, encourage refs to make the right calls and now just add that the player is automatically out for the balance of that game and the next 2 games. If a team has 3 or more in a game, the head coach is also out for 2 games and needs to go to a disciplinary hearing. The idea should be to keep players playing at the youth level not having teams play shorthanded for 5 minutes at a time.

I think I know what you mean, but am a bit confused,.

BBgunner · Post by **BBgunner** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:32 am

I am a big fan of and will continue to be a big fan of making the rules and enforcement follow what High School and College is now. I think it will make the kids think more and by all means will help prevent anymore incidents in the future. They will never be eliminated but it will help.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:03 pm

I am going to pack and leave for Mpls.

If you really think I need to know something, call my cell.
218-766-4433

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:15 pm

These meetings are open meetings so instead of having Elliott or someone else speak for you, show up and voice your opinion.
Last June everyone was in an uproar on Peewee Checking even the President of USA Hockey attended and there were very few visitors, and before anyone asks I did attend and did voice my opinion even to the President of USA Hockey.
If you feel and want our sport to improve the board needs to see people attending, numbers in attendance will mean more than someone delivering messages. Elliott does a great job communication but now is the time to show up and have his back!!

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:29 pm

seek & destroy wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
GoldenBear wrote:Elliott, don't know what agenda is, but I've seen two Bantam A games this past week....six checking from behind penalties--three each game; five of them may not have been called a month ago; one was blatant/scary to watch. I support all of them being called. When will new High School League rules be implemented at Youth level? Is this an agenda item? Enjoy meetings. GB
This is on the agenda for a committee as the whole meeting at 8 o'clock tonight.
Tons of different input from all over the place.
I would also agree that the checking from behind penalty needs to be more scrutinized at the youth level. This is where kids start to learn how to play hockey the right way.

In my opinion, to avoid having games becoming all about special teams at the youth level, they should keep the same rules, encourage refs to make the right calls and now just add that the player is automatically out for the balance of that game and the next 2 games. If a team has 3 or more in a game, the head coach is also out for 2 games and needs to go to a disciplinary hearing. The idea should be to keep players playing at the youth level not having teams play shorthanded for 5 minutes at a time.

Part of the issue here is that nothing but the most blatant CFBs were called this year. There needs to be a zero tolerance on this, but if we make huge penalties for infractions, then I fear that it will be tougher for refs to make the call on the borderline plays. The game is fast at the bantam level and some of these plays are not malicious, but rather quick reactions in a difficult situation.

I am fine with suspending the coach for games if there are repeat offences, however, we need to balance the fact that the refs at the bantam level are still youth hockey refs. Most of them I have seen this year cannot keep up with the play and are out of position on a lot of calls. Going to two refs will help this out, but to put the onus and pressure on them to suspend a kid for 2 or 3 games is not fair to them or the kid.

seek & destroy · Post by **seek & destroy** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:09 pm

elliott70 wrote:
seek & destroy wrote:
elliott70 wrote: This is on the agenda for a committee as the whole meeting at 8 o'clock tonight.
Tons of different input from all over the place.
I would also agree that the checking from behind penalty needs to be more scrutinized at the youth level. This is where kids start to learn how to play hockey the right way.

In my opinion, to avoid having games becoming all about special teams at the youth level, they should keep the same rules, encourage refs to make the right calls and now just add that the player is automatically out for the balance of that game and the next 2 games. If a team has 3 or more in a game, the head coach is also out for 2 games and needs to go to a disciplinary hearing. The idea should be to keep players playing at the youth level not having teams play shorthanded for 5 minutes at a time.
I think I know what you mean, but am a bit confused,.

Elliot,

Simply mean that the current rules are good enough and just need to be called properly. They allow the ref to make a judgment call and give the 5 minute major ONLY when it is the correct call. 2 and 10's would allow all the other players a better chance to play the game because you keep 5 guys in the games more often. If a 5 minute is called that player is going to suffer additonal consequences rather than punishing the rest of the bench.

One final thought, given the increased attention to all of this I wonder if Minnesota Hockey will reconsider their HEP point system along with the STOP patches. Everyone seems to think we have failed to teach the game and it seems to be a bigger problem now then ever before. FYI- I don't think we should get rid of them but it looks like others feel we are proving them to be a failure.

ahastars03 · Post by **ahastars03** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:52 pm

I wanted to add to the discussion of the 5 min major penalty. Also want to say that I am not against it but just adding to the discussion.

Wasn't it a few years ago that they made some changes to the penalty format and instead of 2 min they are 1.5 min. (I know this isn't the case for every game) but the point of that was to take away from having such a high percentage of a given period be a PP. Now if we throw in a 5 min major for contact to the head or every check from behind what then, in some games that is 1/3 of a period. Again I am not against it but wanted to bring this up in the discussion. If we want harsher penaltys then if someone trips someone why did we make that less of a penalty?

council member retired · Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:11 pm

Currently the 5 minute major for checks from behind, boarding, and head contact is high school only. This meeting for MN Hockey is not the MSHSL.

SB65 · Post by **SB65** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:42 am

Elliott70,

Thank you for your feedback on this forum.

I'm wondering if any decisions were made with regard to the A/AA classifications/tournaments. Will large associations field both an A and AA teams? What levels will be included (SQ, PW, BT)? Will all associations be required to field A teams? etc, etc

Thanks again!

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:31 am

SB65 wrote:Elliott70,

Thank you for your feedback on this forum.

I'm wondering if any decisions were made with regard to the A/AA classifications/tournaments. Will large associations field both an A and AA teams? What levels will be included (SQ, PW, BT)? Will all associations be required to field A teams? etc, etc

Thanks again!

The final wording has not been done but basically it is AA for playoffs for all high school double AA teams plus those that want to opt up. BUT AA can also opt down.
Not sure how the final wording will come out but I believe an association can have AA, A, B1 & B2 (as many as they desire at each level) (more than 1 at a level they are to be equal).
The AA will break into 4 regions with 8 teams divided up geographically. If more than 32 teams than play-ins will be held.
Everyone else will continue through districts/regions/state as before.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:32 am

Incidentally, one board member (a district director) voted 'no'.

The Enlightened One · Post by **The Enlightened One** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:41 pm

What is the point of changing the format if a team can opt up or down as they want? If the reason for this is to give the smaller associations a chance (assuming a small association will have a correspondingly small High School) but then you turn and let a large association (assuming a AA high school) opt down to play in that bracket I don't see the point. A very good chance I am missing something though as I tend to be a bit dense sometimes.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:08 am

The Enlightened One wrote:What is the point of changing the format if a team can opt up or down as they want? If the reason for this is to give the smaller associations a chance (assuming a small association will have a correspondingly small High School) but then you turn and let a large association (assuming a AA high school) opt down to play in that bracket I don't see the point. A very good chance I am missing something though as I tend to be a bit dense sometimes.

Apparently I was missing something also, as I voted 'no'.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:42 am

I think it would be fair for those AA programs that are large multi school co-ops to opt down. Dodge County and Winona in my area fall into that category, these aren't hockey powers and are AA only because they allow other schools to co-op with them to give other kids an opportunity to play hockey. Dodge County can't even field a JV team this year.

Maybe a fairer way would be to look at 5 year average numbers of registered kids at Peewee or Bantam in an association then taking the biggest 32, 48, or 64 associations and making them AA. I'm not an everybody wins type of guy but I do believe setting kids up for not only failure but to be humiliated because they're from Dodge County and a MSHSL AA school and that makes them equal to Minnetonka is a wrong approach.