HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Hockeyguy_27 wrote:

elliott70 wrote:What would you like to tell the MN Hockey Board?

What is it we need to know about your hockey player, family, association?

What is it MN Hockey could do better or different to make it better for you?

2. Too many referees are hiding behind the zero tolerance policy to avoid any accountability regarding rule interpretation or even questioning a call. Ever since this policy came into effect, it has been a proverbial carte blache for some officials to throw a coach out of a game just because they can.

I guess if we are going to put this into play I have one. Explain to coaches that there is no need for an explanation on minor penalties. Coaches feel that they have the right to question every call an official makes when in reality, the coaches job is to be teaching the kids the game. A player gets a penalty (whether or not deserving, as officials do make mistakes) and the player goes to the bench. End of story. If we kept it at that, there wouldn't be a need to worry about being asked to leave the game because you wanted to argue your interpritation of a hooking call.

So I guess we should just leave the zero tolerance policy in place.

Syracuse?

Tenoverpar wrote:Wanna

sounds like you are saying that by watering down the A level by having association have 2 or 3 would be detrimental for the 3-4 superstars that would be with the "watered down" team? Are you saying that the development of ALL kids isn't worth the expense of the ONE? (does anyone think that these kids still won't develop?)
Are you saying that a player's development is the result of the level of talent he plays "with"?

Sounds like you're the one with the issue here, not everyone else. You sound very elitist...your post even sounds like a cry for AAA for the elitists kids so they won't have to be surrounded by the stewage from B class...

Actually, no, I'm saying that is all that will be needed to get it started. Once that team gets going, than much like summer AAA hockey, the others will beginning popping up like tulips in the spring. I'm elitist to the point of each association should have only ONE squirt A, Peewee A and Bantam A team. I think it is sad that we have to keep everyone happy because they didn't get their way. Are there kids every year that are goiong to be disappointed, of course, are there kids every year that will probably be picked or left off and it ends up being a big mistake, sure there will. But this isn't a death sentence and where a 100 guilty go free before we execute one innocent man...Maybe the kid who gets caught and has to play a year of B's is humbled and trys harder, or maybe they want to prove those people wrong. Those mistakes create success stories and they are very valuable.


Don't worry no one thinks your son/daughter is a failure because they didn't make the A team and you shouldn't either. There is only going to be one Varsity team in these towns, why and if you factor in private schools there are going to be plenty of spots taken up on those teams that play B hockey. You as a player make the strides to get better, either you work at improving your skills or you get passed, so whether you play Tier I, AAA, A, B, B2, it doesn't matter, you get what you earn.

It is not elitist to think only one A team per association, however, the association should "right size" their teams for the betterment of their kids. If they have 200 kids, but their one "A" team is only winning 60% of their games, then they probably have it right. If however, they are winning 90+% of their games by large margins, then they should add as many teams as necessary to make them more competitive.

It is best for the kids (in my opinion) to be challenged in a game environment. If there is not a challenge, then their development is hindered and they may eventually get bored. Or worse, when others catch up, many early developers quit because they can't handle the thought of being second best.

The goal is not to force associations to add A teams, but for associations to take a critical look at their talent and numbers and make their teams competitive with their peers. That is what is best for the kids. Being dominant or losing all the time at age 10-12 is not good for any kids long term development. I know that kids best development activities happen at practice, but having fun games is what keeps kids involved for the long haul.

Sorno..bingo...thats exactly what I'm saying...thanks for making it more clear

I don't agree with GR3343 regarding checking in Squirts, unless it is only in the defensive end that would give the kids a nice progession into checking.
I agree Pee Wee (especially 1st yr) kids don't know how to check but I don't think they are being taught. what ever age if they don't get the instruction it will not get better.

GR3343 wrote:Allow checking at the squirt level. That way, by the time they are pee wees, they'll know how to accept and deliver a check.

In Canada, bodychecking at the squirt level has been a big issue the past few years. Hockey Canada ruled, last November, that bodychecking shouldn't start til age 11.
I think they got it right.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/ ... cking.html

theref wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:I am not 100% behind tag up offsides. What it does is allow a team to shoot in the puck, reducing the pressure on their D, while waiting for teammates to clear the zone. Under current rules that should be an intentional offsides and bring a defensive zone faceoff. To avoid that a team has to pass and stickhandle the puck in the neutral zone. I would rather see action in the neutral zone where a turnover may provide an odd-man rush than teams having a freebie to breakout under little pressure.

The biggest bonus to tag up offsides is it keeps rules consistent to HS and USA hockey.

That is incorrect. USA hockey only uses tag up offsides at the Upper Levels (women's 19U, Mens, etc) but not at any of the youth level. It is still an immediate whistle for squirts, peewees, and bantams. That is probably the reason that MN hockey has not made a change. HS does use tag up though.

I was only aware of USA hockey using the tag up rule for older teams. I assumed that it was the same down through the ranks. Thanks for the clarification.

Someone mentioned that immediate offsides forces teams to regroup at center ice and puts pressure on the defensemen. I like that. It's a lot more exciting than dumping the puck in and clearing the zone.

1) add tier 1 hockey - minor and major on a limited trial bases.
if the sky falls get rid of it.
2) start checking at squirts
3) loose fair play
4) I like my helmet
5) touch up at peewee -A and all bantams
I don't think this would fly; because it's a USA hockey rule ?
6) 16-17 min stop time- peewee on up.
7) let associations decide on quantity of A teams. but give some guide lines. if they go with 2 they should decide 16-30 or balancing 2 teams.
associations decide.

THANKS ELLIOT!

RE: multiple A teams based on association/level size.

O-townClown wrote:I can envision a program that stuffs 15 skaters on every B and C team or puts in provisions to discourage some players from coming out in an effort to stay below a certain threshhold.

Excellent point. It's sad to think that could be a result.

O-townClown wrote:
I can envision a program that stuffs 15 skaters on every B and C team or puts in provisions to discourage some players from coming out in an effort to stay below a certain threshhold.

WHY?

regdunlop77 wrote:

GR3343 wrote:Allow checking at the squirt level. That way, by the time they are pee wees, they'll know how to accept and deliver a check.

In Canada, bodychecking at the squirt level has been a big issue the past few years. Hockey Canada ruled, last November, that bodychecking shouldn't start til age 11.
I think they got it right.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/ ... cking.html

"We have not experienced any major problems with injury or safety and we still believe that the program is worthwhile," the Ontario Hockey Federation's Joe Drago said.


according to this part the article; I think they got it wrong.

My two cents:

1. Helmets for coaches is a good idea, I've been there where a coach got wiped out from behind from a mite and put him in the hopital, so you look like a geek, so what.

2. Go back to tag up offsides, faceoffs are a waste of time, keep the kids skating.

3. Add tier 1 hockey on a trial basis in the metro area to start, 3-4 teams as independant, major squirt, minor / major peewee, minor / major bantam.

4. Force strong associations to field 2 A teams, but I think they should be balanced, if kids are good enough to play at the A level let them play there. It can only develope more kids, whats wrong with that.

5. I wish more could be done to promote Hockey in the cities of St. Paul and MPLS. so much history and tradition going by the wayside.

Hobey Faker wrote:1) add tier 1 hockey - minor and major on a limited trial bases.
if the sky falls get rid of it.
2) start checking at squirts
3) loose fair play
4) I like my helmet
5) touch up at peewee -A and all bantams
I don't think this would fly; because it's a USA hockey rule ?
6) 16-17 min stop time- peewee on up.
7) let associations decide on quantity of A teams. but give some guide lines. if they go with 2 they should decide 16-30 or balancing 2 teams.
associations decide.

THANKS ELLIOT!

I only disagree really with #5...I used to think that tag-up was the way to go, but the more I've seen those neutral ice skills develope, the more I lean towards keeping it the same. The obvious skills the defense gains by handling the puck skating backwards and supporting their partner. But also, the forwards are learning how to get open in tight area's. A skill they should be working on through the use of small area games. I think by adding one more zone to become accomplished at getting open adds to the skill of the player and that will transcend to the offensive zone as well as on breakouts. The kids dump the puck in enough as it is. I can't count the number of 3 on 2's I've seen this year get dumped in. being able to get up to speed get the puck and turn a D in transition is as valuable a skill as any and I think you need the automatic offsides to develope it.

I also think that games should go to 17 minute stop time periods and it is up to the associations to make sure there is ample time to complete the games. It should be against the rules to run the clock in the third, or open the doors after an hour and five minutes. With game limits there needs to be assurances that everyone gets the most out of their games.

wannagototherink wrote:

Hobey Faker wrote:1) add tier 1 hockey - minor and major on a limited trial bases.
if the sky falls get rid of it.
2) start checking at squirts
3) loose fair play
4) I like my helmet
5) touch up at peewee -A and all bantams
I don't think this would fly; because it's a USA hockey rule ?
6) 16-17 min stop time- peewee on up.
7) let associations decide on quantity of A teams. but give some guide lines. if they go with 2 they should decide 16-30 or balancing 2 teams.
associations decide.

THANKS ELLIOT!

I only disagree really with #5...I used to think that tag-up was the way to go, but the more I've seen those neutral ice skills develope, the more I lean towards keeping it the same. The obvious skills the defense gains by handling the puck skating backwards and supporting their partner. But also, the forwards are learning how to get open in tight area's. A skill they should be working on through the use of small area games. I think by adding one more zone to become accomplished at getting open adds to the skill of the player and that will transcend to the offensive zone as well as on breakouts. The kids dump the puck in enough as it is. I can't count the number of 3 on 2's I've seen this year get dumped in. being able to get up to speed get the puck and turn a D in transition is as valuable a skill as any and I think you need the automatic offsides to develope it.

I also think that games should go to 17 minute stop time periods and it is up to the associations to make sure there is ample time to complete the games. It should be against the rules to run the clock in the third, or open the doors after an hour and five minutes. With game limits there needs to be assurances that everyone gets the most out of their games.

good point with #5, i just don't like the automatic whistle; mabe a free out
of the zone with this age. I do agree the Defense need to handle the puck
and watching a team regroup and break back into the zone is great.
Coaches should be teaching this with or without delayed offsides.

1) Tag up offsides at the Bantam level. Dump and chase is a style of play that is used extensively at every level beyond youth, we'd beter teach our kids how to play it and even more importantly how to defend it. The level of play at the high school level is low because kids can't defend against dump and chase, coaches are better and know how to stop a team in the neutral zone so instead of basic hockey; get the puck in deep, kids continualy turn the puck over. Roseau won a state tournament lat year playing dump and chase and nobody would say those kids weren't skilled.

2) individual skills are fine but we're missing fundementals. I watched my 5 year old neice take skating lessons the other week, the instructors were constantly on the kids about keeping their head up, "look at me" was a common pharse. On the other rink were 20-25 6 year old termites, maybe 3 skated with their head up and this was without pucks. For some reason you put a stick in their hand and a helmet on their head and they look 4 ft in front of them. Also this stupid 3-3 cross rink crap is bad hockey. Kids learn to play with their head down, they can see their teamate with periphial vision in that small area. Hockey is played on a full rink, you need your head up to see what's happening everywhere. Most of us old enough learned to play hockey on a full sheet of outdoor ice against 15 other kids, you had to play with your head up. Now kids learn on the width of a rink against 3 kids. No wonder they can't play a team game. Individual skills with poor fundementals = bad hockey.

3) The strib had an article about Minneapolis hockey and how tieing it to their high schools and neighborhoods was the best way to revive hockey. In many places that's what you have to do, playing for your high school is important and the only reason many sports survive. This isn't always the case, especially in places like Eden Prairie or many large metro school districts but it is in most of Minnesota. Towns take pride in their schools and their achievments, nobody cares about a bantam team. Don't lose that aspect of youth sports.

4) HEP is stupid

5) Make sure there is a place for the rec level player, you can't force travel on everyone from bantams on up and expect to survive. Even if local associations have to band together to form a rec league let them. If 1 town has 3 teams another 2 and a third 1 that's plenty for a rec league and really cuts down on travel for everyone. Districts are too big for a viable rec level.

Hobey Faker wrote:O-townClown wrote:
I can envision a program that stuffs 15 skaters on every B and C team or puts in provisions to discourage some players from coming out in an effort to stay below a certain threshhold.

WHY?

Do you need an answer? I think it is pretty obvious. Let's say Blaine wants to have one Pee Wee team and can only do that if they have 12 or fewer teams. If they are forecasted to have 190 players try out they have three choices:

1) have 2 A teams
2) stuff rosters too full
3) make sure they only have 175 kids come out

16 or 17 minute periods all the way down to Peewees huh?.............Guess us referees will be getting that raise after all.

1. Why do Officials have voting representation on the BOD, but not Coaches?
2. Should look at term limits for most if not all positions. The make-up of the Board does not reflect the demographics that it represents. There really is no reason for a person to be on a non-profit board for more than six to eight years.
3. Who has the right to vote in elections? Is it simply the BOD, or the general membership?
4. Get rid of the fair play points. There is simply no way to achieve consistency with officials from all over the state. I read Jorgensen's article on officiating, but yet to see the "standard" of officiating he talked of. Last year we had an association in our district that achieved 95%+ of its fair play points, at all levels. All but a handful of points lost were road games. A part of me says that is to statistically unbalanced to be valid.

theref wrote:16 or 17 minute periods all the way down to Peewees huh?.............Guess us referees will be getting that raise after all.

at least earning your keep!

1) Bag the unfair play point.

2) Tag up rule in effect from Pee Wee's upward

3) No forced number of teams at any level. Have kids play where they can compete. B kids playing at an A level does not mean these kids will improve........A level is supposed to be the top level with the most skilled players. Lets treat it that way........

4) General membership voting on all major issues. "Major" to be determined......

Private school B teams. Read the post about the St Thomas D1/D8 mess. That is wrong and shows 2 problems.

1 - Private school B teams in or out- I say in but make them take thier beatings vs A teams.

2- District sizes D1 has 9 B teams in district play for 3 spots to regionals, D8 has 17 for 2 spots this year to regionals. And I bet the D8 teams are better top to bottom over D1 teams. EVEN OUT THE SIZE OF THE DISTRICTS!

the refs get paid way to much for youth GAMES, where can a 16-19 year old make this type of money in a part time job, why does this Custom Lettering have all the contract rights for Mn Hockey , Gicve it back to the locals and help keep the costs down for everybody

Answere me this....In what other job do 16-19 yr old kids get verbally abused

Joey (nine toes) Marcoux wrote:Answere me this....In what other job do 16-19 yr old kids get verbally abused

sometimes working on the family farm...

Other than that I am not positive....