[quote="Puckhead631"]1. The rule change was discussed at length at the January D6 board meeting and was changed to be consistent with the rule change for Junior Gold.
He's right, an on good authority. Move on to other things.
D6 Rule Change Coincidence?
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Puckhead631
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:31 pm
Why does this attorney stuff keep coming up? If that was true, don't ya think for a second, that Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and Jefferson people would hire an attorney too?
Do you really think that Minnesota Hockey (who was fully aware of the decision and was present at the D6 meeting) would approve?
My point is this - no wrong doing here PERIOD.
To quote a hockey legend "Nuff Said" on this topic.
Do you really think that Minnesota Hockey (who was fully aware of the decision and was present at the D6 meeting) would approve?
My point is this - no wrong doing here PERIOD.
To quote a hockey legend "Nuff Said" on this topic.
-
gerryodrowski
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:35 am
- Location: Trout Creek Ontario
Hockey Legend?
Mr. Potato Head is a "hockey legend"? Nuff said....
There's something rotten in Denmark - or Edina. Theres more questions than answers on this. In august after lengthy discusion and formal vote with the board and memebrs from all the associations the fighting rule was changed FROM a mandatory 3 game suspension TO a 5 game suspension.
At a later meeting, apperently there was another discusion to change the rule from 5 to 3 for junior gold ONLY. But they decided AGAIN that that they wanted to keep Bantam and lower at 5 games.
1. Puckhead trys to say the rule was changed back to 3 games in January. How would you explain the panicked "retroactive" email that was sent out the day after(2/7) the fight then? (if the rule was changed in Jan there'd be no reason for the email)
2. If the original rule was voted in by a formal discussion and vote, why wouldn't the same process be used to change it back? If one or two guys can change the rules whenever they want, why even have a board?
3. Doesn't an emergency, retroactive rule change strongly point to behidn the scenes politics?
4. The "official" rule on the d6 web site, STILL says 5 games. If the Edina kid plays in tonights game, and Jefferson or soemone protests now or later wouldn't Edina be at risk of forfeiting the game for using an ineligible player?
At a later meeting, apperently there was another discusion to change the rule from 5 to 3 for junior gold ONLY. But they decided AGAIN that that they wanted to keep Bantam and lower at 5 games.
1. Puckhead trys to say the rule was changed back to 3 games in January. How would you explain the panicked "retroactive" email that was sent out the day after(2/7) the fight then? (if the rule was changed in Jan there'd be no reason for the email)
2. If the original rule was voted in by a formal discussion and vote, why wouldn't the same process be used to change it back? If one or two guys can change the rules whenever they want, why even have a board?
3. Doesn't an emergency, retroactive rule change strongly point to behidn the scenes politics?
4. The "official" rule on the d6 web site, STILL says 5 games. If the Edina kid plays in tonights game, and Jefferson or soemone protests now or later wouldn't Edina be at risk of forfeiting the game for using an ineligible player?
-
skatehardordie
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 3:09 pm
rule change
Also, if the idea is conformity with Junior Gold, why aren't age levels below JG held to the same rule when it comes to number of penalties in a game? 3 and you're done for the game.
Also in JG, the rule is 3 games or two weeks, which covers more games. Is that part of the new D6 rule?
Also in JG, the rule is 3 games or two weeks, which covers more games. Is that part of the new D6 rule?