HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

DMom wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:If a player (parents) start the waiver process, but along the way the waiver process is derailed - for this example, let's say the DD won't sign it - can the original associate refuse to accept the kid back?

I am sure they cannot refuse the kid because he/she never actually waivered out, but if tryouts are over than it's unfortunate, because he/she lost the opportunity to tryout for an A or B team. Though if it was delayed by the adults in the process and the family did not receive a reply until after the home association's tryouts were over, than someone should make it right for the kid.

Let's say her paperwork and check were given to the registrar prior to the home association tryouts, but the registrar was instructed by the association president to return them.

When I read the MH rule, it seems to me that she maintains her status with the home association, even if she plays for the other team, so I'm not sure the basis behind the exile imposed on the child by her home association board.

Just when I start to think maybe some of you are correct, that I'm too hard on board members, I hear a story like this that affirms my beliefs.

I infer from the shock and surprise of Inigo's "example" that it's real, rather than another IM-built straw man (so easily turned into the burning effigy of any or all "board members" everywhere).

Do tell! Name names!

Unless, of course, it has nothing to do with the waiver, and you, or "her parents" are pushing that agenda.

TriedThat2 wrote:Unless, of course, it has nothing to do with the waiver, and you, or "her parents" are pushing that agenda.

I'm not sure the agenda to which you are referring.

Enlighten me.

If a player (parents) start the waiver process, but along the way the waiver process is derailed - for this example, let's say the DD won't sign it - can the original associate refuse to accept the kid back?

Pretty vague IM. There is no waiver opportunity if an appropriate level team is offered by her residence/current association. If there is no appropriate level team then there shouldn't have been a problem. All of that should have been worked out before either association had tryouts though.

In my opinion it should be the closest, bordering, association but certainly within the District.

If your example isn't hypothetical, good luck to the skater.

I'm not sure how anyone ever got the idea that I just come up with fictional stories of dastardly doings in association hockey. Truth is much stranger than fiction - all accounts, as I've typed them, are as true as I can recall the story as told.

This situation as I've heard it:
"Her parents" don't care for the job the board president and others have done for 8 or 10 continuous years. They were happy to take their child elsewhere, the president was happy to oblige. Through no fault of the parent or the president, the waiver has been declared null and void - the kid is NOT allowed to skate at the new association. The board has voted to not allow the kid back into the association.

My "agenda" is that a little kid would like to play hockey, and big adults are getting in the way.

The adult getting in the way sounds as if it may have been her parent. Ouch, how does the parent feel now.

If someone is unhappy with their association their responsibility is to get involved and help them to improve. Remember, this is community based hockey not club. You play where you live.

My suggestion would be to allow the player back, but not the parents.

IM,
This wouldn't happen to be the same family that gave up legal guardianship to an older sibling so he could skate for another association?

Inigo's story is so unbelievable it could be true. Or, the story has been told and retold so many times very little is correct. But if a player never actually leaves the home association until the waiver was complete, no board action was needed for her to remain in the association. However, if she missed tryouts and wants to be placed on maybe the "A" team and the association rules say No, quit a different story.

I am more interested in knowing why the new association wouldn't accept the player? Or did the District nullify the waiver?

I will rephrase my original question, as it doesn't seem that you read it. Please note that I am looking for an interpretation of the rules, which it doesn't seem you have read either. No surprise to me; that is exactly the experience I have had with local association boards myself - many folks that have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but are happy to proceed anyway.

Can the local association refuse to allow the kid an opportunity to play hockey?

We had one family that bounced all over looking for someone that would recognize just how great Johnny was. They live in the land of perpetual dissatisfaction. There had to be an association somewhere that would recognize that dad was a genius and adopt all of his great ideas while he drank Mountain Dew and pontificated near the boards.

I get the whole community hockey thing, but there are times when you just have to let them go and hope they don't come back.

OK IM, i am sorry...I have read, and can provide the following.
It does look like an association can refuse to allow a skater to participate. If the local group elects to move the skater to a member not in good standing, the MN Hockey by laws (page 16 of the handbook) allow them to refuse to register or roster.

InigoMontoya wrote: Can the local association refuse to allow the kid an opportunity to play hockey?

Local boards are given lots of lattitude. District Boards are made up of mostly former/current members of local boards, same with state boards. These people have had to deal with all of this stuff many times over.

I get the whole community hockey thing, but there are times when you just have to let them go and hope they don't come back.

It is my understanding that was indeed the original plan.

InigoMontoya wrote:I will rephrase my original question, as it doesn't seem that you read it. Please note that I am looking for an interpretation of the rules, which it doesn't seem you have read either. No surprise to me; that is exactly the experience I have had with local association boards myself - many folks that have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but are happy to proceed anyway.

Can the local association refuse to allow the kid an opportunity to play hockey?

Not without risking a lawsuit, since it's specifically in the charter of USA and MN Hockey to provide hockey opportunities to ALL kids who are interested.

But to be more specific, Participation Rule B, Number 4:

4. Players waived for non-school attendance reasons shall be subject to the receiving association's policies in accordance with MH governing documents (e.g. may not be eligible for "A" team, may be assigned to lowest available team, etc.). They shall remain members of their Home Association, not the association they were waived into, with full rights and privileges accorded to all members of their Home Association, including voting rights.

Not a lot of room for interpretation there. Can't see why NOT getting the waiver would change the status of their membership in the home association, especially since you say it was the DD who denied this request. Would the DD not have this kid play at all, anywhere in the district? Why? Then there should be a hearing about this, assuming its for disciplinary reasons.

Or, to my other point,

All of that should have been worked out before either association had tryouts though.

If the waiver wasn't granted then she never left. But, she missed tryouts which is a problem and a mistake by the family.

TriedThat2 wrote:OK IM, i am sorry...I have read, and can provide the following.
It does look like an association can refuse to allow a skater to participate. If the local group elects to move the skater to a member not in good standing, the MN Hockey by laws (page 16 of the handbook) allow them to refuse to register or roster.

I wonder what a small child could possibly do to forfeit her "membership in good standing" status.

Local boards reserve the right to refuse service. Our assn came close with one player that could not behave. Tripping, slashing, injury stuff. He eventually got in trouble with park & rec for behavior off the ice and they banned him from the building, solving the boards problem.

Parents have been banned from a game or two for bad behavior during games.

If a parent were to decide to pursue these things with the district or state, or even courts... they are free to, but I predict the local board would be suppported.

Then there should be a hearing about this, assuming its for disciplinary reasons.

A hearing you say?

From the Affiliate Agreement:
H. Grievance Resolution
Affiliate shall provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of grievances of its members, including fair notice and opportunity for a hearing to any amateur athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, or official before declaring such individual ineligible to participate.[/u]

Come on Inigo. If you know the "rest of the story" please provide rather than add bits/pieces with every post.

As a former association board member, the only case we had of a family being in "bad standing" was non-payment of registration fees. Scholarship funds were available, but money was not the problem. Just wouldn't pay. So kids were welcome to play if the prior year fees were paid and current year.

Was non-payment of fees the issue?

TriedThat2 wrote:IM,
This wouldn't happen to be the same family that gave up legal guardianship to an older sibling so he could skate for another association?

TT2,
I heard a family out west did that for educational reasons.
It seems some boys on the high school hockey team were in possession of something and weren't allowed to participate in the state tournament.
Is that the situation you're reefer-ing to?

Educational purposes, now that vaults to the top of the list. I can't compete with such a professional as yourself IM. Keep up the good work though, you're only 10 posts away from the magical 1,000. Working on the Hall of Fame election speech yet?

TriedThat2 wrote:Educational purposes, now that vaults to the top of the list. I can't compete with such a professional as yourself IM. Keep up the good work though, you're only 10 posts away from the magical 1,000. Working on the Hall of Fame election speech yet?

Will do. Thanks for the kind words. I would imagine this is the last we'll see of you, though. You'll be busy explaining why you're spreading information on this forum regarding a grievance that has been filed against you with Minnesota Hockey. Keep up the good work, though.

Well you two have a lot to say privately, so why no PM it all and leave us out of it?



That said, this whole "member in good standing" business is VERY vague indeed, but reading in the considerable space between the lines here, it sounds like this association wanted to get rid of this family and waive them out (which they undoubtedly wanted too), but the DD wouldn't go for it, so they're SOL. Except that there's clearly a case (seemingly) to be made for a grievance, if no one will let this poor girl play hockey anywhere and there is no disciplinary reason why. (IE she/family is not SUSPENDED, they are NOT IN GOOD STANDING, with no definition in the bylaws of what this status actually is nor how to reverse it. This is a terrible loophole that any lawyer would drive a truck through... and drive back out again with a boatload of money.