Girls Participating in Boy AAA Tourneys

[spin-o-rama]

Nobody is complaining about if they belong Spin - just stating their OPINION. Second place team or not, is it such a bad thing to notify the other teams that there is an all girls team playing? I don't think so - you may think differently - that's fine. What if the tourney director decided to make it a "no checking" tourney and didn't notify all the teams or if one of the teams was a year class younger? Is that any different? I bet my mortgage that you would want to know if that were the case. Quit being so sensitive - it's AMAZING how SENSITIVE people are!

Are you worried that your team might catch cooties? Get real. Basically every tournament has their rules which include if it's checking or not. As long as the kids are the right age, in this case born 1997 or later, and the team is competitive, then there is nothing to complain about. Using this tournament as an example gives your platform no support.

[This is silly!]

Nobody is complaining about if they belong Spin - just stating their OPINION. Second place team or not, is it such a bad thing to notify the other teams that there is an all girls team playing? I don't think so - you may think differently - that's fine. What if the tourney director decided to make it a "no checking" tourney and didn't notify all the teams or if one of the teams was a year class younger? Is that any different? I bet my mortgage that you would want to know if that were the case. Quit being so sensitive - it's AMAZING how SENSITIVE people are!

Are you worried that your team might catch cooties? Get real. Basically every tournament has their rules which include if it's checking or not. As long as the kids are the right age, in this case born 1997 or later, and the team is competitive, then there is nothing to complain about. Using this tournament as an example gives your platform no support.

Read the first post on this subject Einstein, err, I mean spin-o-rama! My "platform" is EXACTLY what this subject is all about! It's just one side of it. If you don't agree that's fine.

And yeah, cooties - that's what I'm worried about. Get real yourself.

BTW - I have a daughter that plays hockey ON A GIRLS TEAM. That's the way she likes it. Different strokes for different folks - that's all.

[muckandgrind]

The problem Muck is that girls playing in a boys tourney illustrates the double standard that Murray wrote about. All facts aside about the girls team being able to compete with and actually beat some of the boys teams - it still stands that double standards like this just end up causing controversy whichever side you are on. It's like association hockey - YOUTH teams and GIRLS teams but no BOYS teams. In my opinion it's not right - I don't care how good a particular girl or team of girls is - that shouldn't necessarily give them the right to play vs boys teams. In this particular case all the boys teams should have at the very least been notified to give them the option playing or not.

Here's the difference......there are fewer girls playing than boys...and with the fewer girls, there is a much wider range of talent among them. Some girls are simply too skilled to play at the level of girls hockey offered to them, so the opportunity to step it up and play at the boys level will help in their development. Is that so wrong? Most of the top HS girls in the state played boys hockey up until the Bantam age...why? Because playing girls hockey wouldn't have provided them with much challenge at all.

Once the number of opportunties and options available to the top girls increase, I think you see the number of girls playing with boys decrease.

Why would you (or your team) be uncomfortable playing against girls? I've seen girls play on boy's teams for quite some time and they get hit just like anyone else....no one takes it easy on them, and they shouldn't.

Don't you think that the level of play of girls hockey would advance quicker if the best girls stayed on girls teams instead of going over to play on a boys team? If the best girls aren't playing on the girls teams then who is raising the bar so that the level of play elevates? Seems logical to me.
Also, I don't think that because there are fewer girls playing that there is a wider range of talent - actually I would say it's just the opposite!

Lastly, my opinion here of course so don't everyone go off the deep end on me here, I think that it's hard for ANY boy to play his best, hit his hardest or however you may want to phrase it when they (he) is playing vs a girl or a team of girls. It's simply human nature and I don't think it can be completely turned on or off. Unless the boys are playing vs Olympic level female talent I just don't think you are getting their "best" effort. It's just not apples to apples.

Well, you're logic is wrong....one of the best youth players I've seen was a girl named Krissy Wendell. There was not a girls league in the State that she couldn't dominate. The best way for her to be challenged and get better was to play with the boys.....and guess what? She was one of the best players on a team full of boys....and (gasp) guess what else she did???? She did the unthinkable!!!! She also played on a boys Little League team that went to the Little League World Series!!! What the hell was she thinking? She had no right to play with the boys! Those parents should've been notiified ahead of time!!!!

I've been around this game for quite some time. I've seen MANY girls play at on the boys' teams. I've also seen them get absolutely HAMMERED by checks. Some took it pretty well, some didn't. Some could dish it, some couldn't....by the way, you can say the exact same thing about many of the boys.

[hammer99]

The fact is that it is obvious sexism to allow girls to play with the boys, but not allow the boys to play with the girls. Not sure how you can argue that.

[muckandgrind]

The fact is that it is obvious sexism to allow girls to play with the boys, but not allow the boys to play with the girls. Not sure how you can argue that.

I have yet to see any boys suing to play on a girl's hockey team.....and answer me this question: Why would a boy want to play on a girl's team? If they want to play "no check" hockey, there are rec leagues available. If they want to play in a "less skilled" environment, they have "C" leagues.

Now, if a skilled girl wants to be challenged and is good enough to play at the youth "A" level, you would tell her she can't simply because she's a girl? Really?

My take is if a girl is good enough to play boy's traveling hockey, she should. If not, she shouldn't. What's wrong with that? It's not sexism to allow the girls to play on a boy's team.....it's a matter of allowing a kid who is good enough to play at the level they deserve to be playing at, regardless of whether or not they are a boy or a girl. If you want your boy to play on a girl's team, then go to court and file a lawsuit to make it so. But I'm not sure why you would when you have plenty of options available to your son that girl's don't have. If your son isn't good enough to play "A", they can play "B" or "C". If a girl is too good for their association's level of hockey for girls, why not let them play boy's "A" if they can make the team in a fair tryout?

This is about letting kids play at the level they should be playing at, not what is hanging between their legs. Someone PLEASE tell me why this is so wrong.

[hammer99]

[quote="muckandgrind"][quote="hammer99"]The fact is that it is obvious sexism to allow girls to play with the boys, but not allow the boys to play with the girls. Not sure how you can argue that.[/quote]

I have yet to see any boys suing to play on a girl's hockey team.....and answer me this question: Why would a boy want to play on a girl's team? If they want to play "no check" hockey, there are rec leagues available. If they want to play in a "less skilled" environment, they have "C" leagues.

Now, if a skilled girl wants to be challenged and is good enough to play at the youth "A" level, you would tell her she can't simply because she's a girl? Really?

My take is if a girl is good enough to play boy's traveling hockey, she should. If not, she shouldn't. What's wrong with that? It's not sexism to allow the girls to play on a boy's team.....it's a matter of allowing a kid who is good enough to play at the level they deserve to be playing at, regardless of whether or not they are a boy or a girl. If you want your boy to play on a girl's team, then go to court and file a lawsuit to make it so.[/quote]




You talk as if every rule in this country is made as a result of a lawsuit. The fact is that I would never sue over a matter such as this one because quite frankly I dont care enough about it to spend money fighting it. Nevertheless, The fact is that this rule is obviously sexist for many reasons.

First off the rule treats the girls' level as a lower level than the boys. If people truly want women to be treated equally, they need to start looking at gender seperate hockey leagues as equal.

Second off it's just flat out common sense. If men can't play with women, women shouldn't be allowed to play with men. This really isn't a difficult idea to grasp.

[muckandgrind]

The fact is that it is obvious sexism to allow girls to play with the boys, but not allow the boys to play with the girls. Not sure how you can argue that.

I have yet to see any boys suing to play on a girl's hockey team.....and answer me this question: Why would a boy want to play on a girl's team? If they want to play "no check" hockey, there are rec leagues available. If they want to play in a "less skilled" environment, they have "C" leagues.

Now, if a skilled girl wants to be challenged and is good enough to play at the youth "A" level, you would tell her she can't simply because she's a girl? Really?

My take is if a girl is good enough to play boy's traveling hockey, she should. If not, she shouldn't. What's wrong with that? It's not sexism to allow the girls to play on a boy's team.....it's a matter of allowing a kid who is good enough to play at the level they deserve to be playing at, regardless of whether or not they are a boy or a girl. If you want your boy to play on a girl's team, then go to court and file a lawsuit to make it so.

You talk as if every rule in this country is made as a result of a lawsuit. The fact is that I would never sue over a matter such as this one because quite frankly I dont care enough about it to spend money fighting it. Nevertheless, The fact is that this rule is obviously sexist for many reasons.

First off the rule treats the girls' level as a lower level than the boys. If people truly want women to be treated equally, they need to start looking at gender seperate hockey leagues as equal.

Second off it's just flat out common sense. If men can't play with women, women shouldn't be allowed to play with men. This really isn't a difficult idea to grasp.

You are so wrong. You're in denial if you don't think that boy's hockey isn't played at a higher level than girl's hockey. It's just a fact that there are some girls that are, quite frankly, too good for girl's hockey.

Now, I'm not saying that all girls should be allowed to play at the boy's "A" or "B" levels simply because they want to. They have to try out like anyone else. If they make it on their talent, there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to play with the boys.

Conversely, because girl's hockey is played at a level below that of the boy's, there is no legitimate reason why any boy would even WANT to play to play girl's hockey. The only way your argument would make sense is if you think a boy was SO bad that even the "C" level was too strong for him that he could only compete if he played with the girls bottom level teams.....I haven't seen that before, and I've been around the game for quite some time.

I just think that kids should play at the level they are best able to play at. If a girl is good enough to play at the "A" Pee Wee or Bantam level (which is BY FAR better than U12 and U14) then they should. If they aren't good enough, then they should stay in the girls program.

I do hope that one day we get to the point where there isn't a need for the top girls to play with boys. I really hope that girls hockey will one day grow to the level where these girls can stay in the girls program. We're not there yet....

The fact is that if you surveyed virtually EVERY woman who has played (or is playing) D1 hockey, my bet is that they ALL have played on boy's teams at some point in their youth because they didn't have girls programs that could challenge them in their development.

You would tell them "tough - play with the girls" because that's "fair".

Of course, if you want your boy to play on a girls team out of principle...than sign him up for one. I'd support your actions 100%....

[Benito Juarez]

If a girl player is good enough for a Pee Wee A team, she should be good enough for a 14U team.
Move her to the level of competition that is appropriate for the little superstar.

As far as a whole team of pony-tails in a boys tournament that just seems like its a no win situation for the boys.

I don't think it sends a good message to young boys that it is OK to hit a girl in any situation.

Just my 2 cents.

[murray]

sweet we finally had a krissy wendell reference. let use the outlier to prove the rule.

summer hockey what ever goes is great. a tourney organizer wants to let a girls team in so be it.

but association hockey is a different story. that spot my daughter takes on the squirt B or A, then peewees A/B. leads to another boys not developing with his peers. this could lead to him not playing high school with his peers.

that is not a situation we want.

and for how great she was, did she play high school hockey with the boys?

[InigoMontoya]

I love the "unfair to bump a boy" argument.

[muckandgrind]

sweet we finally had a krissy wendell reference. let use the outlier to prove the rule.

summer hockey what ever goes is great. a tourney organizer wants to let a girls team in so be it.

but association hockey is a different story. that spot my daughter takes on the squirt B or A, then peewees A/B. leads to another boys not developing with his peers. this could lead to him not playing high school with his peers.

that is not a situation we want.

and for how great she was, did she play high school hockey with the boys?

It's the outliers I'm referring to....Girls who are head and shoulders better then their peers. If the talent level of a girl is such that she will be pushed enough playing girl's hockey - then that is where she should be.

Sure, U14 is an option for some...however, not many associations run strong U14 teams as most of the best 14 year olds are usually playing girls HS hockey by that time anyways.

And, no, Krissy did not play boys HS hockey. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she might've played one year of Bantam and then played on the girls HS squad.....

[InigoMontoya]

Of course, if you want your boy to play on a girls team out of principle...than sign him up for one. I'd support your actions 100%....

I'm going to jump onto this idea with Muck. Let's DO have him sign up for the girls' team. He can start off with the team building activities of having his nails done by his teamates. Then he'll have to play on the B team because they don't have an A team. His coach won't be as good, because (in nearly every case) a coach will accept a boys' position over a girls' position. He will get to wear pink somewhere on his uniform. He'll get some practices cancelled due to birthday parties. And in most associations, if there are issues to be resolved regarding his team, they'll go largely unattended, as very few on the board give two thoughts to girls' hockey.

[InigoMontoya]

Sure, U14 is an option for some...however, not many associations run strong U14 teams as most of the best 14 year olds are usually playing girls HS hockey by that time anyways.

In many associations all of the 14Us (and several 12Us) are playing JV or Varsity.

[Benito Juarez]

Sure, U14 is an option for some...however, not many associations run strong U14 teams as most of the best 14 year olds are usually playing girls HS hockey by that time anyways.

In many associations all of the 14Us (and several 12Us) are playing JV or Varsity.

I should transfer my superstar 10U there.....she could play varsity for 9 years.

[muckandgrind]

If a girl player is good enough for a Pee Wee A team, she should be good enough for a 14U team.
Move her to the level of competition that is appropriate for the little superstar.

As far as a whole team of pony-tails in a boys tournament that just seems like its a no win situation for the boys.

I don't think it sends a good message to young boys that it is OK to hit a girl in any situation.

Just my 2 cents.

That's backwards thinking. You tell that boy to treat that girl on the other team like he would any other player....and from what I see, that's generally the case. Conversely, if your girl is good enough to play with the boys, you need to prepare her for the fact that she will get hit.

[Benito Juarez]

If a girl player is good enough for a Pee Wee A team, she should be good enough for a 14U team.
Move her to the level of competition that is appropriate for the little superstar.

As far as a whole team of pony-tails in a boys tournament that just seems like its a no win situation for the boys.

I don't think it sends a good message to young boys that it is OK to hit a girl in any situation.

Just my 2 cents.

That's backwards thinking. You tell that boy to treat that girl on the other team like he would any other player....and from what I see, that's generally the case. Conversely, if your girl is good enough to play with the boys, you need to prepare her for the fact that she will get hit.

My son has played against girls many times and he won't check them, even when he was cheap shot-ted from behind from a little princess.

Now if that would have been a boy he would of got his number and tried to (cleanly) take his head off.

Just my situation and opinion, to each his own.

[Cut Above]

Of course, if you want your boy to play on a girls team out of principle...than sign him up for one. I'd support your actions 100%....

I'm going to jump onto this idea with Muck. Let's DO have him sign up for the girls' team. He can start off with the team building activities of having his nails done by his teamates. Then he'll have to play on the B team because they don't have an A team. His coach won't be as good, because (in nearly every case) a coach will accept a boys' position over a girls' position. He will get to wear pink somewhere on his uniform. He'll get some practices cancelled due to birthday parties. And in most associations, if there are issues to be resolved regarding his team, they'll go largely unattended, as very few on the board give two thoughts to girls' hockey.

A little off topic but another angle:

THIS IS WHERE BOARDS HAVE IT ALL WRONG. If they don't want girls playing on boys teams they NEED to care about having a strong girls program!

[HockeyDad2016]

My son has played against girls many times and he won't check them, even when he was cheap shot-ted from behind from a little princess.

Now if that would have been a boy he would of got his number and tried to (cleanly) take his head off.

Just my situation and opinion, to each his own.[/quote]




-------------------------------------------


From what I have seen over the years - If little Tommy gets taken out by little Suzie, clean hit or not "most of the time clean" - Tommy really has something to prove - seen many times Tommy take a cheap shot and take a penalty for it. But in his mind he got even and won't have to take all the teasing from his buddies.

[muckandgrind]

If a girl player is good enough for a Pee Wee A team, she should be good enough for a 14U team.
Move her to the level of competition that is appropriate for the little superstar.

As far as a whole team of pony-tails in a boys tournament that just seems like its a no win situation for the boys.

I don't think it sends a good message to young boys that it is OK to hit a girl in any situation.

Just my 2 cents.

That's backwards thinking. You tell that boy to treat that girl on the other team like he would any other player....and from what I see, that's generally the case. Conversely, if your girl is good enough to play with the boys, you need to prepare her for the fact that she will get hit.

My son has played against girls many times and he won't check them, even when he was cheap shot-ted from behind from a little princess.
Now if that would have been a boy he would of got his number and tried to (cleanly) take his head off.

Just my situation and opinion, to each his own.

No disrespect to your son....but that's not the fault of the girl, that's something that your kid needs to get past. Checking a girl in hockey is not the same as beating one up.

This could be a topic for a different thread, but we also need to get past the notion that checking means you need to take a player's head off.....the purpose of checking a player is to separate that player from the puck, plain and simple. Some checks are harder then others, sure. But I see far too many kids worrying about leveling an opponent rather than playing the puck.

[Benito Juarez]

Point taken Muck.....the next time he plays against a girl I will tell him to imagine it's one of his Sisters.

[InigoMontoya]

Sure, U14 is an option for some...however, not many associations run strong U14 teams as most of the best 14 year olds are usually playing girls HS hockey by that time anyways.

In many associations all of the 14Us (and several 12Us) are playing JV or Varsity.

I should transfer my superstar 10U there.....she could play varsity for 9 years.

They can't play JV or Varsity until 7th grade - it's only six years - but I'm sure they'd be happy to have her.

[just saying]

Would someone post where these hockey players (girls in this case) played last winter? I am not interested in their Assn, just looking for the level (Example: PWA, PWB, U12A, SQA, etc.)

[This is silly!]

Here's the difference......there are fewer girls playing than boys...and with the fewer girls, there is a much wider range of talent among them. Some girls are simply too skilled to play at the level of girls hockey offered to them, so the opportunity to step it up and play at the boys level will help in their development. Is that so wrong? Most of the top HS girls in the state played boys hockey up until the Bantam age...why? Because playing girls hockey wouldn't have provided them with much challenge at all.

Once the number of opportunties and options available to the top girls increase, I think you see the number of girls playing with boys decrease.

Why would you (or your team) be uncomfortable playing against girls? I've seen girls play on boy's teams for quite some time and they get hit just like anyone else....no one takes it easy on them, and they shouldn't.

Don't you think that the level of play of girls hockey would advance quicker if the best girls stayed on girls teams instead of going over to play on a boys team? If the best girls aren't playing on the girls teams then who is raising the bar so that the level of play elevates? Seems logical to me.
Also, I don't think that because there are fewer girls playing that there is a wider range of talent - actually I would say it's just the opposite!

Lastly, my opinion here of course so don't everyone go off the deep end on me here, I think that it's hard for ANY boy to play his best, hit his hardest or however you may want to phrase it when they (he) is playing vs a girl or a team of girls. It's simply human nature and I don't think it can be completely turned on or off. Unless the boys are playing vs Olympic level female talent I just don't think you are getting their "best" effort. It's just not apples to apples.

Well, you're logic is wrong....one of the best youth players I've seen was a girl named Krissy Wendell. There was not a girls league in the State that she couldn't dominate. The best way for her to be challenged and get better was to play with the boys.....and guess what? She was one of the best players on a team full of boys....and (gasp) guess what else she did???? She did the unthinkable!!!! She also played on a boys Little League team that went to the Little League World Series!!! What the hell was she thinking? She had no right to play with the boys! Those parents should've been notiified ahead of time!!!!

I've been around this game for quite some time. I've seen MANY girls play at on the boys' teams. I've also seen them get absolutely HAMMERED by checks. Some took it pretty well, some didn't. Some could dish it, some couldn't....by the way, you can say the exact same thing about many of the boys.

Muck - I've got to say that this example is SOOOO nearsighted! Sure, there's going to be a player like Krissy that you can use as you shining example but for every Krissy out there playing on a boys team there are 20, 30, maybe even 40 or more girls (probably A LOT more than that in reality) that don't have half the talent Krissy has trying to make their way out there on a boys team (but I'm sure their dads think they are that good). Sure Krissy fit and maybe was better than most of the boys she played against or even WAY better than the boys she played against but she was the EXCEPTION. Heck, wasn't Wayne Gretzky WAY better than all the boys he played against in his youth hockey career? Yes, he was but he also was the exception. You don't go changing rules for the shining few - you let them move on.

So muck - you never took a crack at the question I posed back a while ago - If the best girls aren't playing on the girls teams then who is raising the bar so that the level of girls play elevates? In other words, how does girls hockey get better so that these super "Kirssys" can play on girls teams? That's what gets me - in your point of view you want to allow the best of the best girls to go play on boys teams and in essence leave the girls game behind and not advance the overall skill level of girls' teams by letting them participate on boys (sorry, YOUTH) teams.

I guess in the end that is what it is all about - ME, ME, ME - do what's best for me and screw everyone else. Screw the advancement of the girls game, screw the boy that doesn't want to play vs a girl etc, etc . . .

[Cut Above]

I guess in the end that is what it is all about - ME, ME, ME - do what's best for me and screw everyone else. Screw the advancement of the girls game, screw the boy that doesn't want to play vs a girl etc, etc . . .

That's completely unfair! It's not the ME ME ME or screw everyone else thing you're referring to. Realize, more girls choose not to dedicate themselves and out of frustration we do in fact say SCREW YOU ALL because now it is about ME ME ME! What's wrong with that?

In addition, what about the Board Members that don't care about the girls program? Screw you too because this is about ME ME ME!

A crack at your question now. How do we make the girls better? Step #1, Recruitment and retention as this will take care of most of our problems.

[hammer99]

[quote="muckandgrind"][quote="hammer99"][quote="muckandgrind"][quote="hammer99"]The fact is that it is obvious sexism to allow girls to play with the boys, but not allow the boys to play with the girls. Not sure how you can argue that.[/quote]

I have yet to see any boys suing to play on a girl's hockey team.....and answer me this question: Why would a boy want to play on a girl's team? If they want to play "no check" hockey, there are rec leagues available. If they want to play in a "less skilled" environment, they have "C" leagues.

Now, if a skilled girl wants to be challenged and is good enough to play at the youth "A" level, you would tell her she can't simply because she's a girl? Really?

My take is if a girl is good enough to play boy's traveling hockey, she should. If not, she shouldn't. What's wrong with that? It's not sexism to allow the girls to play on a boy's team.....it's a matter of allowing a kid who is good enough to play at the level they deserve to be playing at, regardless of whether or not they are a boy or a girl. If you want your boy to play on a girl's team, then go to court and file a lawsuit to make it so.[/quote]




You talk as if every rule in this country is made as a result of a lawsuit. The fact is that I would never sue over a matter such as this one because quite frankly I dont care enough about it to spend money fighting it. Nevertheless, The fact is that this rule is obviously sexist for many reasons.

First off the rule treats the girls' level as a lower level than the boys. If people truly want women to be treated equally, they need to start looking at gender seperate hockey leagues as equal.

[b]Second off it's just flat out common sense. If men can't play with women, women shouldn't be allowed to play with men. This really isn't a difficult idea to grasp[/b].[/quote]

You are so wrong. You're in denial if you don't think that boy's hockey isn't played at a higher level than girl's hockey. It's just a fact that there are some girls that are, quite frankly, too good for girl's hockey.

Now, I'm not saying that all girls should be allowed to play at the boy's "A" or "B" levels simply because they want to. They have to try out like anyone else. If they make it on their talent, there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to play with the boys.

Conversely, because girl's hockey is played at a level below that of the boy's, there is no legitimate reason why any boy would even WANT to play to play girl's hockey. The only way your argument would make sense is if you think a boy was SO bad that even the "C" level was too strong for him that he could only compete if he played with the girls bottom level teams.....I haven't seen that before, and I've been around the game for quite some time.

I just think that kids should play at the level they are best able to play at. If a girl is good enough to play at the "A" Pee Wee or Bantam level (which is BY FAR better than U12 and U14) then they should. If they aren't good enough, then they should stay in the girls program.

I do hope that one day we get to the point where there isn't a need for the top girls to play with boys. I really hope that girls hockey will one day grow to the level where these girls can stay in the girls program. We're not there yet....

The fact is that if you surveyed virtually EVERY woman who has played (or is playing) D1 hockey, my bet is that they ALL have played on boy's teams at some point in their youth because they didn't have girls programs that could challenge them in their development.

You would tell them "tough - play with the girls" because that's "fair".

Of course, if you want your boy to play on a girls team out of principle...than sign him up for one. I'd support your actions 100%....[/q








I find it very amusing that you believe that the girls' level needs to be better in order for the top of the girls crop to play in the girls' league, while you suggest that the best of the girls' should go play with the boys. By leaving the girls' league they are essentially making it worse, you're posts on this thread seem to suggest that you are a very selfish parent of a top level girls hockey player.