HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

any word out of Moorhead (I heard Elk River V. Tonka for 'ship) or Breezy Point (heard Andover won) ???

TheGreenHornet wrote:

TheGreenHornet wrote:Here are some that I've heard about Friday and tonight this must be the Sahkopee tourney, this was all that was texted to me.

Blaine 1
Vs
STMA 3

Shakopee 0
Saint Cloud 3

Eastview 1
STMA 3

East View 5
Red wing 0

Red wind 0
STMA 12

in the Championship tomorrow

STMA
Vs
Saint Cloud

STMA Champions in a 6 man Shoot out
Saint Cloud Second
Shakopee Third

Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

Mnhockeys wrote:

TheGreenHornet wrote:

TheGreenHornet wrote:Here are some that I've heard about Friday and tonight this must be the Sahkopee tourney, this was all that was texted to me.

Blaine 1
Vs
STMA 3

Shakopee 0
Saint Cloud 3

Eastview 1
STMA 3

East View 5
Red wing 0

Red wind 0
STMA 12

in the Championship tomorrow

STMA
Vs
Saint Cloud

STMA Champions in a 6 man Shoot out
Saint Cloud Second
Shakopee Third

Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Anyone know the results from the Squirt A Breezy Point Tourney?

the_juiceman wrote:

Mnhockeys wrote:

TheGreenHornet wrote: STMA Champions in a 6 man Shoot out
Saint Cloud Second
Shakopee Third

Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote:

Mnhockeys wrote: Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

I doubt it otherwise they would have allowed more time.

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote:

Mnhockeys wrote: Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

hope he is ok, it is tough playing every game

trippedovertheblueline wrote:

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote: 2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

hope he is ok, it is tough playing every game

Playing every game happens at every level, suspect 99% of goalies would want it no other way. Hardly a tough task.

Forest Lake A squirts and Pee-wee A only have one goalie.Works just fine.

old goalie85 wrote:Forest Lake A squirts and Pee-wee A only have one goalie.Works just fine.

Per your thread earlier in the week, I guess it really doesn't does it????

Oops, didn't realize you were only pointing at the A teams. What happens when you get to Bantams and play 70 games and only have 1 kid that has ever faced A level games?

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote:

Mnhockeys wrote: Eastview goalie had a bleeding nose in the mid of 2nd period. EV had to sit out the goalie with charged TO, played without a goalie and were scored on twice from center ice. The 1st Shakopee goal was a mistake, tipped in by EV defenseman. EV lost 1:3.

2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

Well, I guess you just found out why!! there's injuries, sickness, school commitments etc... or just not his game that night. And if you have 6 teams and only 3 goalies, then your assc. needs to do a better job of recruiting and enticing kids to play goalie. It's more vital at the "A" & "B1" level because of the competition, higher skill level and the increased # of games. Sure they want to play all the games, who doesn't? But as you've found out the hard way, it's not always realalistic.

D-mom I'm trying to remeber back to oldest. I think we had two but tom played one like 75 % and the other 25 to 35 % of the time. Then he ended up quitting the following year. {soph]

old goalie85 wrote:D-mom I'm trying to remeber back to oldest. I think we had two but tom played one like 75 % and the other 25 to 35 % of the time. Then he ended up quitting the following year. {soph]

That' wasn't allowed than and it isn't allowed now. 50-50 fair play goalie rule. What do you do when your A goalie "quits"? Not only C players find themselves in that position.

That' wasn't allowed than and it isn't allowed now. 50-50 fair play goalie rule. What do you do when your A goalie "quits"? Not only C players find themselves in that position.[/quote]

Is this true that you have to play goalies 50/50? That might explain why teams only have one.

the_juiceman wrote:

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote: 2 goalies at the A level is a must. Bummer

Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

Well, I guess you just found out why!! there's injuries, sickness, school commitments etc... or just not his game that night. And if you have 6 teams and only 3 goalies, then your assc. needs to do a better job of recruiting and enticing kids to play goalie. It's more vital at the "A" & "B1" level because of the competition, higher skill level and the increased # of games. Sure they want to play all the games, who doesn't? But as you've found out the hard way, it's not always realalistic.

A shortage of goalies in small/many associations is a problem on/off year to year. With the change in the economy I can guarantee to it's going to become more of an issue - just have to look at the drops in volume at some of the larger goalie training centers. Associations understand and do what they can do. Sometimes a couple of kids change their mind at the last minute or perhaps a financial situation has changed. Bottom line -vision forward - no matter what associations do, less and less teams in the future (A, B, or C) at any/every level will have more than 1 goalie - reality.

D-mom I guess your right, just asked mrs. goalie, I guess the way he did it was had one play vs tougher teams but they played even, untill regions that year. Then stared one.

I as an ex-goalie liked having only one when I played. But I can see as a parent, or if I coached I would want two. Comp, drills, injury, and whatever else.

sounds like, and I'm not positive...

Edina won Bloomington tournament

Minnetonka won Moorhead tournament

Andover won Breezy point

and STMA won shokapee in a shootout

forreal wrote:sounds like, and I'm not positive...

Edina won Bloomington tournament

Minnetonka won Moorhead tournament

Andover won Breezy point

and STMA won shokapee in a shootout

I can confirm all but Tonka winning in Moorhead (against Elk River).

ogelthorpe wrote:That' wasn't allowed than and it isn't allowed now. 50-50 fair play goalie rule. What do you do when your A goalie "quits"? Not only C players find themselves in that position.

Is this true that you have to play goalies 50/50? That might explain why teams only have one.[/quote]

50/50 rule? Is there a playing rule about skaters getting equal ice time? Not at the "A" or "B1" in most associations. PP & PK time are usually given to the hardest workers & more skilled players. Ever here of "shortening the bench" in the third period? If there is a 50/50 rule, I think it's silly. It should be up to the coaching staff. It should be spelled out for the parents/player what the coaches thought process is--if they don't like it, play at a lower level (b2-c).

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote:

TheJet wrote:
Explain to me why at the "A" level and not any other level? I don't follow the logic.

Secondly did you consider perhaps "numbers" being a reason? With 3 total goalies trying out and 6 squirt teams, it may be sort of tough to have 2 per team. (They have a B goalie that could easily play for most teams out there, it was no ploy to strengthen the team.)

Anyway perhaps the "right" (while maybe not technically right under the letter of the law) thing to do would have been to relax and let nature take its course, and allow the team/kid a bit more time (especially in view of the fact this team waited over an hour to get on the ice on Friday night due to a delay in another team getting to the game in front of them, with the last player to arrive the solo goalie for that team). I don't think the bleeding nose, a result of getting pounced on by the opposing team, would have lasted an hour.

I suspect the opposing team would have taken greater satisfaction in potentially still winning the game or playing a tight scoring game in a loss, then to get two open net goals in the second period.

Well, I guess you just found out why!! there's injuries, sickness, school commitments etc... or just not his game that night. And if you have 6 teams and only 3 goalies, then your assc. needs to do a better job of recruiting and enticing kids to play goalie. It's more vital at the "A" & "B1" level because of the competition, higher skill level and the increased # of games. Sure they want to play all the games, who doesn't? But as you've found out the hard way, it's not always realalistic.

A shortage of goalies in small/many associations is a problem on/off year to year. With the change in the economy I can guarantee to it's going to become more of an issue - just have to look at the drops in volume at some of the larger goalie training centers. Associations understand and do what they can do. Sometimes a couple of kids change their mind at the last minute or perhaps a financial situation has changed. Bottom line -vision forward - no matter what associations do, less and less teams in the future (A, B, or C) at any/every level will have more than 1 goalie - reality.

I totally understand the economic part of it. that's why the association needs to do more to entice kids to want to play the position--supply goalie equipment, only pay 1/2 price, offer free goalie clinics thru-out the year --are a few examples. If the Associations aren't proactive on this, then yes, most teams will end up with only 1 goalie and then you'll have more situations like the afore mentioned incident happening.

the_juiceman wrote:

TheJet wrote:

the_juiceman wrote: Well, I guess you just found out why!! there's injuries, sickness, school commitments etc... or just not his game that night. And if you have 6 teams and only 3 goalies, then your assc. needs to do a better job of recruiting and enticing kids to play goalie. It's more vital at the "A" & "B1" level because of the competition, higher skill level and the increased # of games. Sure they want to play all the games, who doesn't? But as you've found out the hard way, it's not always realalistic.

A shortage of goalies in small/many associations is a problem on/off year to year. With the change in the economy I can guarantee to it's going to become more of an issue - just have to look at the drops in volume at some of the larger goalie training centers. Associations understand and do what they can do. Sometimes a couple of kids change their mind at the last minute or perhaps a financial situation has changed. Bottom line -vision forward - no matter what associations do, less and less teams in the future (A, B, or C) at any/every level will have more than 1 goalie - reality.

I totally understand the economic part of it. that's why the association needs to do more to entice kids to want to play the position--supply goalie equipment, only pay 1/2 price, offer free goalie clinics thru-out the year --are a few examples. If the Associations aren't proactive on this, then yes, most teams will end up with only 1 goalie and then you'll have more situations like the afore mentioned incident happening.

Our association is fantastic, they do all of the above. Incentives will only take things so far. Goalie numbers are and will be down in general - period.

Prior lake vs Andover in the final at Orono this weekend. Are there any other squirt tournaments this weekend? Prior lake seems to be very strong this year. A father of one player said they've only lost 2 games all year. Have they played Edina?

forreal wrote:Prior lake vs Andover in the final at Orono this weekend. Are there any other squirt tournaments this weekend? Prior lake seems to be very strong this year. A father of one player said they've only lost 2 games all year. Have they played Edina?

There's one in Brainerd and one in Duluth. Scores anyone!

Grand Rapids Star of the North Tournament, don't have all the scores but here is what I know.

First Round
St. Francis 3
Grand Rapids 2 OT

Waconia over Thief River Falls - not sure of the score

St. Cloud 6
Bemidji 4

Centennial 6
Cloquet 2

Semi Finals

St. Francis over Waconia not sure of score

Centennial 4
St. Cloud 3 OT

Third Place

St. Cloud 6
Waconia 2

Championship

Centennial 12
St. Francis 0