Walser/Effects of the D6 Rule on MM

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:15 pm

interestedbystander wrote:
JDUBBS1280 wrote:However, Minnesota Hockey is looking out for the best interest of ALL our kids.
NO....Mn hockey is not looking out for the interest of ALL kids. They are looking out for the interest of the majority of the kids. Therein lies the problem. There is a certain percentage of kids (and parents) that want a CHOICE of where to play. They are being held back (not being allowed to play for the association of their choice) to protect the masses (the majority) under the guise of protecting hockey for ALL kids. If it was looking out for the best interest of ALL kids, there would not be some kids getting continually screwed over by association politics - they would be able to move on and play where they please. I agree with commitment to a team and not missing practices, etc. - this isn't just about MM. And by the way, not everybody in MN hockey lives within driving distance of that opportunity to play.

You do have a choice. Your community association or elsewhere. That isn't a choice?

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:16 pm

Deep Breath wrote:I've been involved with the Choice League for 4 years. Never once have I ever heard anybody associated with MM ever utter anything remotely close to "you better miss your association game/practice so you can be at Choice." Not saying it hasn't happened, but having spent the better part of the last 4 years around that league and the poeple who run it, I've never heard it.

Also, when we reference all of the poor associaiton coaches and families that all being victimized by the selfish families that have kids doing both Choice and Association, are we talking about the mini-mites, mites, squirts or peewees? I have a hard time believing there are mite association coaches out there wringing their hands because they are a player or two short for that pivitol cross-ice game against the other mite team in their association; or that a player or two may be missing out on "let's gather in a circle for the first 10 minutes of practice and we'll teach you how to squat down without falling". I have coached in the Association for 5 years at the younger levels; i know what kinds of practices are run and my kids have done both Choice and Association. Nobody is being scarred.

As far as the peewee supplemental league goes, call Bernie today and see if it is going to cause a problem if your son or daughter misses either a Sunday night or Wednesday night session because he/she has an Association conflict. He will say fine.

In addition, you read all the time on this board that "youth hockey doesn't matter until they are 14 or 15". Well, if that's true, nobody should care if a player or two from a mite or squirt association team misses an occasional game or practice.

It's happened. Not sure how many other ways I need to say it.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:18 pm

SnowedIn wrote:
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:Thank you for the parenting class.

However, perhaps you don't know HD41's situation. Maybe he comes from a really terrible association, I mean really, really bad, where it seems as though the adults are trying to win an award for worst association, it just couldn't be that bad otherwise - and believe me, there are plenty of them out there that are putting in a good effort to challenge for the title. HD41 would like for his kid to learn how to skate, which he, in his heart-of-hearts, does not believe will happen at his association, so he signs him up at MM. However, HD41 is also civic-minded and wants to support his community, his kid's buddies, and is still hoping that someday the boneheads running the show will politely step aside and give someone else a shot, so he also signs him up for the local mite program which probably practices 2 - 2.5 hours a week. Does HD41 deserve your rath? Do you honestly feel he's abusing his kid? Do you honestly think he's hurting you or your kid? I'm not seeing it. If you don't like what HD41 is doing and you feel that his kid detracts from your team, then don't pick him. But either way, get off your 'I'm a better parent than you' soapbox.
One more thing. Where the heck do you get off using a word like "rath"? I have heard words like "punishment" and "rath" thrown out in reference to this rule and I can't help but shake my head.

There is ZERO punishment. There is ZERO rath. No one is being issued any punishment. People are being presented a CHOICE. Pick a league and commit to it. Again, not rocket science, so I really don't understand why you are having such a problem understanding this.

If you like your community association, great, have your kid play for a team there. If you don't, that's fine. Either move or have your child play for Minnesota Made. Simple.

What you can stop doing is trying to spin this issue in a way to make it sound like kids are being punished. They aren't. No one is denying anyone an opportunity to play. The ONLY people who have an issue with this rule are the people who want to abuse the system. The people who don't understand the concept of commitment.

And that's why we have a court system to help sort out matters like these. What you think is a simple choose this or choose that scenario, others think is taking options away scenario. It's all a matter of opinion. However, if MH is deemed to be using its power illegally then those others' opinions will prevail. If MH hockey is deemed to be fairly exercising its authority then your opinion will prevail. Either way the RATH of the courts will dictate.

It's actually very simple. It all boils down to keeping your commitments. If there wasn't a problem with kids keeping their commitments to community teams, there wouldn't be a rule.

Continue to try and make this about anything else, but in the end you will be wrong. It is about one thing and one thing only. Keeping commitments.

SnowedIn · Post by **SnowedIn** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:19 pm

JDUBBS1280 wrote:
Deep Breath wrote:I've been involved with the Choice League for 4 years. Never once have I ever heard anybody associated with MM ever utter anything remotely close to "you better miss your association game/practice so you can be at Choice." Not saying it hasn't happened, but having spent the better part of the last 4 years around that league and the poeple who run it, I've never heard it.

Also, when we reference all of the poor associaiton coaches and families that all being victimized by the selfish families that have kids doing both Choice and Association, are we talking about the mini-mites, mites, squirts or peewees? I have a hard time believing there are mite association coaches out there wringing their hands because they are a player or two short for that pivitol cross-ice game against the other mite team in their association; or that a player or two may be missing out on "let's gather in a circle for the first 10 minutes of practice and we'll teach you how to squat down without falling". I have coached in the Association for 5 years at the younger levels; i know what kinds of practices are run and my kids have done both Choice and Association. Nobody is being scarred.

As far as the peewee supplemental league goes, call Bernie today and see if it is going to cause a problem if your son or daughter misses either a Sunday night or Wednesday night session because he/she has an Association conflict. He will say fine.

In addition, you read all the time on this board that "youth hockey doesn't matter until they are 14 or 15". Well, if that's true, nobody should care if a player or two from a mite or squirt association team misses an occasional game or practice.
It's happened. Not sure how many other ways I need to say it.

...and it also has snowed in June but that doesn't make mean its the norm.
I also have never heard this at Choice.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:20 pm

In addition, you read all the time on this board that "youth hockey doesn't matter until they are 14 or 15". Well, if that's true, nobody should care if a player or two from a mite or squirt association team misses an occasional game or practice.

Keeping your commitments always matters. Please, try and tell me that not keeping your commitments is a good thing to teach a child. I'd like to hear that rationalization. LOL!

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:21 pm

SnowedIn wrote:
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
Deep Breath wrote:I've been involved with the Choice League for 4 years. Never once have I ever heard anybody associated with MM ever utter anything remotely close to "you better miss your association game/practice so you can be at Choice." Not saying it hasn't happened, but having spent the better part of the last 4 years around that league and the poeple who run it, I've never heard it.

Also, when we reference all of the poor associaiton coaches and families that all being victimized by the selfish families that have kids doing both Choice and Association, are we talking about the mini-mites, mites, squirts or peewees? I have a hard time believing there are mite association coaches out there wringing their hands because they are a player or two short for that pivitol cross-ice game against the other mite team in their association; or that a player or two may be missing out on "let's gather in a circle for the first 10 minutes of practice and we'll teach you how to squat down without falling". I have coached in the Association for 5 years at the younger levels; i know what kinds of practices are run and my kids have done both Choice and Association. Nobody is being scarred.

As far as the peewee supplemental league goes, call Bernie today and see if it is going to cause a problem if your son or daughter misses either a Sunday night or Wednesday night session because he/she has an Association conflict. He will say fine.

In addition, you read all the time on this board that "youth hockey doesn't matter until they are 14 or 15". Well, if that's true, nobody should care if a player or two from a mite or squirt association team misses an occasional game or practice.
It's happened. Not sure how many other ways I need to say it.
...and it also has snowed in June but that doesn't make mean its the norm.
I also have never heard this at Choice.

It's happened enough to make it an issue and warrant a rule.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:26 pm

Then we need to eliminate all activities that kids may be doing aside from hockey if missing a mite-hockey practice is that much of a life-n-death struggle. I coached in our associaiton last winter: here are some of the reasons kids had the gall to miss games &/or practices:

1-vacation
2-piano lesson
3-ice fishing
4-snomobiling with family
5-wanted to watch brother's basketball game

Yet somehow, someway, we were able to manage to continnue the season; nobody was excommunicated from the association or the community at large and the snow eventually melted.

SnowedIn · Post by **SnowedIn** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:26 pm

JDUBBS1280 wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
JDUBBS1280 wrote: One more thing. Where the heck do you get off using a word like "rath"? I have heard words like "punishment" and "rath" thrown out in reference to this rule and I can't help but shake my head.

There is ZERO punishment. There is ZERO rath. No one is being issued any punishment. People are being presented a CHOICE. Pick a league and commit to it. Again, not rocket science, so I really don't understand why you are having such a problem understanding this.

If you like your community association, great, have your kid play for a team there. If you don't, that's fine. Either move or have your child play for Minnesota Made. Simple.

What you can stop doing is trying to spin this issue in a way to make it sound like kids are being punished. They aren't. No one is denying anyone an opportunity to play. The ONLY people who have an issue with this rule are the people who want to abuse the system. The people who don't understand the concept of commitment.

And that's why we have a court system to help sort out matters like these. What you think is a simple choose this or choose that scenario, others think is taking options away scenario. It's all a matter of opinion. However, if MH is deemed to be using its power illegally then those others' opinions will prevail. If MH hockey is deemed to be fairly exercising its authority then your opinion will prevail. Either way the RATH of the courts will dictate.
It's actually very simple. It all boils down to keeping your commitments. If there wasn't a problem with kids keeping their commitments to community teams, there wouldn't be a rule.

Continue to try and make this about anything else, but in the end you will be wrong. It is about one thing and one thing only. Keeping commitments.

Agree Dub, but it's how you demand and enforce those committments that we are talking about. Attendance policy does not illegally infringe on neighboring businesses that offer a product that many can use in addition to maintaining their committment to the association. Telling everyone that they can't do something because they want your committment, even if they can honor the committment and do both is wrong. IMO.

Dub, please answer this: Would you agree that "someone" can skate at MM and keeps its committment to their association?

If you answer no, then that would be kind of silly because it is possible that many can do this.

If you answer yes, then we really only need the attendance policy to make sure those that may have overlap/trouble keeping their committment, committed.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:31 pm

SnowedIn wrote:
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
SnowedIn wrote:
And that's why we have a court system to help sort out matters like these. What you think is a simple choose this or choose that scenario, others think is taking options away scenario. It's all a matter of opinion. However, if MH is deemed to be using its power illegally then those others' opinions will prevail. If MH hockey is deemed to be fairly exercising its authority then your opinion will prevail. Either way the RATH of the courts will dictate.
It's actually very simple. It all boils down to keeping your commitments. If there wasn't a problem with kids keeping their commitments to community teams, there wouldn't be a rule.

Continue to try and make this about anything else, but in the end you will be wrong. It is about one thing and one thing only. Keeping commitments.
Agree Dub, but it's how you demand and enforce those committments that we are talking about. Attendance policy does not illegally infringe on neighboring businesses that offer a product that many can use in addition to maintaining their committment to the association. Telling everyone that they can't do something because they want your committment, even if they can honor the committment and do both is wrong. IMO.

Dub, please answer this: Would you agree that "someone" can skate at MM and keeps its committment to their association?

If you answer no, then that would be kind of silly because it is possible that many can do this.

If you answer yes, then we really only need the attendance policy to make sure those that may have overlap/trouble keeping their committment, committed.

You can't play in both leagues and not miss time in one of them. Therefore, you have to break your commitment to one. If kids were always choosing to break their commitment with MM, then the Minnesota Hockey probably never would have implemented this rule. However, I disagree with your assertation that Bernie doesn't have an issue with kids missing games and practices in his leagues either.

Again, I am really not understanding why this is such a big deal. If there are community associations that are that bad where kids aren't getting the development they need, then those kids are free to play elsewhere (like with Minnesota Made). Why would those kids want to play for Minnesota Made AND their community team?

I think people are being less than truthful here. From what I have seen, the people who REALLY have a problem with this are the people who push their kids too hard and are signing them up for more than they really can make an honest commitment too. That is EXACTLY what this rule is trying to discourage. And I personally think that is healthy.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:33 pm

SnowedIn wrote: Dub, please answer this: Would you agree that "someone" can skate at MM and keeps its committment to their association?

If you answer no, then that would be kind of silly because it is possible that many can do this.

If you answer yes, then we really only need the attendance policy to make sure those that may have overlap/trouble keeping their committment, committed.

Yes. I do think it would be ok if kids kept their commitments to community teams. The problem is, coaches don't want to be the ones to have to enforce that. These coaches are volunteers. If this was an occasional issue, it would be fine to leave to the coaches to enforce. When it becomes a chronic issue, like it has, it falls to the district to step in and try and assist. That is exactly what happened. A lot of coaches and parents complained. This didn't happen over night. This was something that has been discussed for a while.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:39 pm

Regardless of what you think about this rule, I think it is unfair for anyone to be critical of Brad Hewitt and the folks at District 6 and Minnesota Hockey. These people volunteer their time because they care about youth hockey. They give up a lot of time with their families to try and make Minnesota youth hockey better, and they don't get NEARLY enough thanks IMO.

I know Brad Hewitt personally. Have for a very long time. If anyone thinks this was a power play by Brad Hewitt, they don't know Brad Hewitt.

There were no malicious reasons for implementing this rule. The rule was implemented because they felt it was the right thing to do. You may disagree, but when people start disrespecting people who are volunteering their time to try and make Minnesota youth hockey better, I have a BIG problem with that.

That's the real problem I have.

@hockeytweet · Post by **@hockeytweet** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:40 pm

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
On this board, people seem to hear a lot of things, but I don't think they are listening. From who did you hear this? I have had at least one son at Choice since the beginning. The very first year. If you wanted to skip for any reason, there was NEVER a problem. Your mite have big cross ice game versus team #4??, go play, skip. it's all good.
This is youth sports. Save your ideas about commitment for bigger issues in your child's life.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:42 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:
I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
On this board, people seem to hear a lot of things, but I don't think they are listening. From who did you hear this? I have had at least one son at Choice since the beginning. The very first year. If you wanted to skip for any reason, there was NEVER a problem. Your mite have big cross ice game versus team #4??, go play, skip. it's all good.
This is youth sports. Save your ideas about commitment for bigger issues in your child's life.
I'm not going to repeat myself again. You say it doesn't happen, I say it happens a lot. I will tell you this. If it didn't happen a lot, there wouldn't have been a rule implemented.

@hockeytweet · Post by **@hockeytweet** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:53 pm

Are you talking about the Hewitt rule that was implemented? Or are you saying there is a rule at MM?
My response is based on your assumption that there is a rule at MM. There is NOT. Specifically the Choice league. If you are talking about one of the AAA teams, that is another matter.
I believe the few people that you are arguing with, would assert that there is NO rule governing attendance at the Choice League. Because there is NONE.

Your other argument about commitment to a team, is a matter of your own opinion, and I think we understand you, but disagree.

In youth sports how do you want to regulate commitment? You mentioned the poor volunteer coaches. I was one. Do I want to ask a kid and/or his parents if he "really" had to miss because of Church? Or was it the Choice League? How do I interrogate the youngster? What do I do if they were lying to me?

The kid is 8. Or 10. Or 12. I tell them to do what they want. There are too many examples to name.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:03 pm

Isn't there already a thread in existence to cover this topic? How did we get from Walser to the D6 rule?

SnowedIn · Post by **SnowedIn** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:03 pm

JDUBBS1280 wrote:
SnowedIn wrote: Dub, please answer this: Would you agree that "someone" can skate at MM and keeps its committment to their association?

If you answer no, then that would be kind of silly because it is possible that many can do this.

If you answer yes, then we really only need the attendance policy to make sure those that may have overlap/trouble keeping their committment, committed.
Yes. I do think it would be ok if kids kept their commitments to community teams. The problem is, coaches don't want to be the ones to have to enforce that. These coaches are volunteers. If this was an occasional issue, it would be fine to leave to the coaches to enforce. When it becomes a chronic issue, like it has, it falls to the district to step in and try and assist. That is exactly what happened. A lot of coaches and parents complained. This didn't happen over night. This was something that has been discussed for a while.

Coaches are expected to enforce discipline during practice and games. They are the dictator, judge and jury. That is their role. It's not a popularity contest. They earn respect for their expertise and decision making. Any good coach, paid or not, understands this. They are taught this in their coaching certifications. Parents and kids appreciate this because the line is drawn and the business of hockey training of the kids gets down to business. Discipline is at the core of any successfull hockey team and a coaches duties. Why would a coach be unwilling to enforce that?

That issue aside, if the District or Association creates an iron clad policy that all coaches have to abide by, then the coach is off the hook. Also, this covers all absences.

What's the problem?

Targeting one business does still leaves open all other attendance issues, including other hockey training, sports, extra curriculars. Based on initial court docs, it is also illegal.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:07 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:Are you talking about the Hewitt rule that was implemented? Or are you saying there is a rule at MM?
My response is based on your assumption that there is a rule at MM. There is NOT. Specifically the Choice league. If you are talking about one of the AAA teams, that is another matter.
I believe the few people that you are arguing with, would assert that there is NO rule governing attendance at the Choice League. Because there is NONE.

Your other argument about commitment to a team, is a matter of your own opinion, and I think we understand you, but disagree.

In youth sports how do you want to regulate commitment? You mentioned the poor volunteer coaches. I was one. Do I want to ask a kid and/or his parents if he "really" had to miss because of Church? Or was it the Choice League? How do I interrogate the youngster? What do I do if they were lying to me?

The kid is 8. Or 10. Or 12. I tell them to do what they want. There are too many examples to name.

First off, it's not the "Hewitt Rule". That rule wasn't the brain child of Brad Hewitt, nor is he the only one who wanted it implemented. If you were told otherwise, that is wrong.

And no, I wasn't talking about the District 6 rule or any rule at Minnesota Made. I was saying that, in too many circumstances, kids were pressured to not miss practices and games at Minnesota Made.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:11 pm

@hockeytweet wrote: Your other argument about commitment to a team, is a matter of your own opinion, and I think we understand you, but disagree.

I would like to see a rationalization of not keeping your commitment to a team is a good example to teach kids. And if you bring out the religious commitments, school events, family affairs examples, let me stop you right now. There is a HUGE difference between those events and other sporting events.

As for how to regulate commitment? Exactly how it has been regulated. It starts as a responsibility of the coaching staff. As long as they are isolated events, it stays that way. As soon as it becomes a persistent and chronic issue, and coaches and parents have repeatedly complained to the district about the issue, it becomes a district-level issue. And the district did what it felt was the best thing to do.

@hockeytweet · Post by **@hockeytweet** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:13 pm

HD41,
I tried an hour ago when I asked why Team Walser would give a darn where your kid played. MM, Association, or both. They want cold cash, warm bodies, and hot hockey moms.

Friend of Hewitt guy wants to hash out why the D6 rule wasn't such a bad idea. Get over it already. D6 needs (and wants) a new director.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:15 pm

SnowedIn wrote:Targeting one business does still leaves open all other attendance issues, including other hockey training, sports, extra curriculars. Based on initial court docs, it is also illegal.

You see, this is the EXACT type of misinformation that REALLY gets me upset. You had a REALLY good post going, and I was about to agree with much of what you had to say (to some extent). Then, you make the "targeting one business" remark.

Come on. Let's be honest and fair here. We both know (or should both know) that this rule is DID NOT target any one business or entity. It relates to ANY OTHER hockey league. That could be Minnesota Made, or if I start up a league and call it Minnesota Awesome. The rule would apply equally.

As for the first part of your post, I generally agree with you. It should be handled by coaches. However, when it becomes a persistent and chronic issue, and coaches and parents continue to complain to the district, it is only natural for the district to try and act to mitigate the issues and alleviate some of the pressures on the coaches. Otherwise, why do we have a district authority?

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:16 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:HD41,
I tried an hour ago when I asked why Team Walser would give a darn where your kid played. MM, Association, or both. They want cold cash, warm bodies, and hot hockey moms.

Friend of Hewitt guy wants to hash out why the D6 rule wasn't such a bad idea. Get over it already. D6 needs (and wants) a new director.

Isn't that D6 Rule horse dead and buried? Why keep kicking it?

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:17 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:HD41,
I tried an hour ago when I asked why Team Walser would give a darn where your kid played. MM, Association, or both. They want cold cash, warm bodies, and hot hockey moms.

Friend of Hewitt guy wants to hash out why the D6 rule wasn't such a bad idea. Get over it already. D6 needs (and wants) a new director.

Still waiting for that rationalization for why having kids not keep their commitments is a good thing. Please, endulge me. I need a good laugh. As for a new director, dream on. For every nut job like you, there are 9 level-minded individuals who realize that the district was only trying to do what it believed was right to look out for the best interests of the kids it is responsible for.

JDUBBS1280 · Post by **JDUBBS1280** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:18 pm

HockeyDad41 wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:HD41,
I tried an hour ago when I asked why Team Walser would give a darn where your kid played. MM, Association, or both. They want cold cash, warm bodies, and hot hockey moms.

Friend of Hewitt guy wants to hash out why the D6 rule wasn't such a bad idea. Get over it already. D6 needs (and wants) a new director.
Isn't that D6 Rule horse dead and buried? Why keep kicking it?

I just don't like the personal attacks on Brad Hewitt, District 6, and Minnesota Hockey. They are unfounded, unjustified, and in very poor taste.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:21 pm

JDUBBS1280 wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:HD41,
I tried an hour ago when I asked why Team Walser would give a darn where your kid played. MM, Association, or both. They want cold cash, warm bodies, and hot hockey moms.

Friend of Hewitt guy wants to hash out why the D6 rule wasn't such a bad idea. Get over it already. D6 needs (and wants) a new director.
Isn't that D6 Rule horse dead and buried? Why keep kicking it?
I just don't like the personal attacks on Brad Hewitt, District 6, and Minnesota Hockey. They are unfounded, unjustified, and in very poor taste.

Unfortunately, when he endorsed it, it became his plan.

Does D6 have some kind of problem with Walser?

@hockeytweet · Post by **@hockeytweet** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:23 pm

[quote]There is a HUGE difference between those events and other sporting events

Yeah, sporting events aren't as important. So why is missing a hockey practice at the age of 8 a big deal? Trust me, the kid will be fine.

It's the people you would influence, that I worry about. Stop hearing things and start listening.
I feel the punishment you would hand out over infractions, would be far above what a 5-11 year old could possibly handle. "Spare the rod, spoil the child", I can already hear it.

We need to remember that coaches of Mites probably need to be educators first. Save the Mike Keenan rules of discipline for Bantams at least.