HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I directed that last sentence at Hockeyboys.

Oh, and Hockeyboys, who is comparing anything to anyone over 21?. I am comparing two people who cannot drink, say both 18 years old, one who gets a DUI and one who gets a non driving minor. They are treated differently by the law but not under the MSHL.

Now do you get my point?

i do see your point. I just don't agree that they should have different levels of punishment depending on the extent of braking the law. Not when it comes to teenagers and alcohol. the rule is zero tolerance.

Is it o.k. to teach our young people that it is o.k. to break the law - just don't break it too much? Where's the line? Who gets to draw it?

do you really want the MSHSL passing rules that are not consistent with MN state statute?

On a personal note - i really don't think it is realistic to believe HS kids don't have a beer. And i don't think we should send teenagers off to get killed defending our country - but not be able to have a beer.

hockeyboys wrote:i do see your point. I just don't agree that they should have different levels of punishment depending on the extent of braking the law. Not when it comes to teenagers and alcohol. the rule is zero tolerance.

Is it o.k. to teach our young people that it is o.k. to break the law - just don't break it too much? Where's the line? Who gets to draw it?

do you really want the MSHSL passing rules that are not consistent with MN state statute?

On a personal note - i really don't think it is realistic to believe HS kids don't have a beer. And i don't think we should send teenagers off to get killed defending our country - but not be able to have a beer.

??? Sorry not to personally attack and I'm not trying to be rude, but what you're saying makes no sense to me. You start out by saying you don't think the MSHSL should have varying degrees of punishment based on the extent of the crime. I don't agree, but if that's your opinion then I respect that. However, you then say "do you really want the MSHSL passing rules that are inconsistent with MN state statute," which completely contradicts your point. If the MSHSL did stay consistent with the law, then there would be varying punishments for more serious offenses. Hence why you get a way lesser punishment for minor consumption vs. a DUI. I think that's what the other guy was trying to say to you.

minor consumption and dui are 2 totally seperate offenses.

someone under 21 can get a citation for minor consumption without driving. but a driver who is under 21 and gets a dui also gets a consumption citation.

it is not varying degree of punishments for the same offense. they are 2 totally different and seperate offenses. There are just times where you can get both simultaneously.

Okay, let me try to put it in English.

The law treats the minors differently. A minor picked up for a DUI gets more severe punishment than a minor picked up for a "minor." Why doesn't the MSHL do the same? That's my point.

Then, the law and the MSHL rules would be consistent. They presently are not consistent. If you want zero tolerance all the way around, then you are arguing the kid with the "minor" should face the same punishment under the law that the kid with the DUI gets. Then the law would be the same as the MSHL rules.

Yes, they are different offenses. But they are both alcohol offenses and one is clearly valued as more severe than the other by our societal laws.

I've told my son that if he drinks he is done for the entire season. He agreed to my terms.

western wrote:Okay, let me try to put it in English.

The law treats the minors differently. A minor picked up for a DUI gets more severe punishment than a minor picked up for a "minor." Why doesn't the MSHL do the same? That's my point.

Then, the law and the MSHL rules would be consistent. They presently are not consistent. If you want zero tolerance all the way around, then you are arguing the kid with the "minor" should face the same punishment under the law that the kid with the DUI gets. Then the law would be the same as the MSHL rules.

Yes, they are different offenses. But they are both alcohol offenses and one is clearly valued as more severe than the other by our societal laws.

western, what you are saying makes sense to me. Two extreme examples:

1. Athlete drinks a single beer with his buds, someone reports and investigation finds that this in fact took place. MSHSL penalty: two games.

2. Athlete gets totally drunk, registers a .25 and a half-bottle of vodka is found in his car. Rear-ends another vehicle and there are serious injuries. MSHSL penalty: two games?

western wrote:Really? I didn't see that in the MHSL handbook. Is that specified somewhere? Does it apply to any alcohol or chemical offense?

It applies to alcohol, chemical or criminal. I've seen this in action with one of your Central Lakes schools. The STAR player gets an alcohol violation (I believe it was a DUI, but not positive), the whole community knew about it as it was in the papers AND people talk. Everyone is specualting how bad a suspension is going to be for the team as they were ranked pretty high. Season is underway and STAR player is still playing. He enrolled in a treatment program and missed ZERO games or practices.

As far as a rule is concerned, you should talk with your AD about this because I was told that the AD and school administration can decide to impose the punishment or wave it if they feel the player would be better served in a treatment program.

and then there is the winter sport athlete who doesn't play a fall sport, gets into trouble over the summer and, with his parent's blessing, decides
to go out for soccer or x-country, and serve his penalty on some other coach's time.

Now that's parenting.

I have had three kids in this situation. It is important to to kids to focus on high school and some exposure. Bottom line it is not teaching kids on being street smart. Times have changed. Just teach your kid to be smart and not lead into a situation that they are unable to understand. With the new cell phone and picture taking, the past times of "just my bee at a party" gets on the internet. Take some time to explain to you child times are different from the past years.

johnnyquest wrote:and then there is the winter sport athlete who doesn't play a fall sport, gets into trouble over the summer and, with his parent's blessing, decides
to go out for soccer or x-country, and serve his penalty on some other coach's time.

Now that's parenting.

I read something a few years ago that Rochester had more severe penalties - something amounting to half of a season in each activity the student participates in.

Can anyone confirm or elaborate on this?

hockeydad wrote:I read something a few years ago that Rochester had more severe penalties - something amounting to half of a season in each activity the student participates in.

Can anyone confirm or elaborate on this?

I believe Rochester chooses to impose stricter penalties for these kinds of violations than is required by the MSHSL. Maybe someone who's from Rochester can confirm?

Rochester's Public school penalty for Alcohol/drugs is 50% of season for first offense. (i.e 12 Games).

Rookie19 wrote:Rochester's Public school penalty for Alcohol/drugs is 50% of season for first offense. (i.e 12 Games).

That's what I thought. My question is, do they make the kid sit out 50 percent of each sport he is in (say 4 football games in addition to 12 hockey games?

if it is late in the season after mid season, then you need to sit out remainder of that sport ( i.e 2 football games) then you must sit out first six games of hockey season. Again Rochester Public Schools own Policy.

Rookie19 wrote:Rochester's Public school penalty for Alcohol/drugs is 50% of season for first offense. (i.e 12 Games).

I'm not sure if anyone keeps track of these things, but it would be interesting to know how effective this policy has been. Is it a successful deterrent, and do Rochester kids get in less trouble less often than student-athletes in other places? Or do they not really worry about those things when they head out to parties?

Who cares. Kids are going to be kids. Let them play the game, it's supposed to be fun. The majority of hockey players drink and smoke weed anyways and they are really good. This penalty is a sham because then if a star player gets in trouble, it's not fair competition.

FunTimes wrote:Who cares. Kids are going to be kids. Let them play the game, it's supposed to be fun. The majority of hockey players drink and smoke weed anyways and they are really good. This penalty is a sham because then if a star player gets in trouble, it's not fair competition.

Sad, but true.

I thought they changed the rule.

It used to be if you got caught and say you were a hockey player you just signed up for football and served you suspension during football and were fully eligilbe for hockey.

I thought they changed it so you served the suspension for every sport.

In Hibbing it is 6 weeks for your first offense, 18 weeks for your second offense and 3 weeks for guilty by association. This is for alcohol, drugs, tobacco or bad personal conduct. The only bad thing about this is that it makes alot of kids quit the sport which frees up more time to drink and use drugs. I am not opposed to a suspension, but if some, not all, parents were parents and not their kids best friend, maybe some of that punishment could be handled in the home. But it seems like alot of parents tend to look for someone else to blame and not at their own kid. Just my opinion.

i think that the half a season rule for the first offense is a Big 9 rule not just a rochester rule

The MSHSL is the minimum, each district can make the penalty(ies) harsher. The only way to reduce your sentance by seeking treatment, so to speak, is after the third occurance whereby you can regain eligbility after 6 weeks. MSHSL handbook rule #205 2C spells that out. A kid who voluntarily enters a chemical treatment progam even though he hasn't been caught suffers no penalty. Some kids choose to go out for a fall sport and serve their suspension there, others find ways to delay the sentance, being charged crimanally can make the penalty harder to enforce as opposed to being just caught smoking in the parking lot or by posting pictures on facebook. If you're charged you're entitled to your day in court. That happend to a couple of teamates of my eldest son, they were caught by the State Patrol in possesion of cocaine but stalled the legal process out until after the season leaving the school in a bad spot, everybody knew they had been caught but the school could not suspend them based only on hearsay lest they get sued.

So just how does the ISD learn that a student got caught with a beer etc? These are kids less than 18 years old so their 'criminal records' are not open for public view.