New participation rule

hockeyover40 · Post by **hockeyover40** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:33 pm

Not sure how this situation plays out with the new participation rule. Maybe someone in the know could help me understand.

We live in Osseo. Have a first year squirt going into 4th grade who goes to school in Mpls. The plan is when he reaches middle school, 6th grade, and old enough to stay home alone, he would switch to Osseo, Maple Grove schools.

He would play next year in Mpls, but when he switches schools for 6th grade, he would not have a change of residency, because he already lives in Osseo. So what would his options be? Would he be able to play on a A team providing he's good enough, or have to play B for a year?

Thanks in advance.

hockeyover40 · Post by **hockeyover40** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:43 pm

Nobody wants to take a shot at deciphering the new rule???

According to the MH web site, the rule change was passed. It's now called the participation rule. This is a legit situation, and I was hoping someone could give me an answer. Could he stay in Mpls. If he went to Osseo - Maple Grove, would he have to play B, or could he play A.

Anyone.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:53 pm

Can't help. Too confusing.

regsharp · Post by **regsharp** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:26 pm

hockeyover40 wrote:Not sure how this situation plays out with the new participation rule. Maybe someone in the know could help me understand.

We live in Osseo. Have a first year squirt going into 4th grade who goes to school in Mpls. The plan is when he reaches middle school, 6th grade, and old enough to stay home alone, he would switch to Osseo, Maple Grove schools.

He would play next year in Mpls, but when he switches schools for 6th grade, he would not have a change of residency, because he already lives in Osseo. So what would his options be? Would he be able to play on a A team providing he's good enough, or have to play B for a year?

Thanks in advance.

I'd say read the new rule, but this is a mess. Based on your scenario above it looks like you will want to focus on section 2, part d:

[d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate participation determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation.]

the parts embolden are mine. Should you elect for your player to now play based on the current school for next season, this will become his/her "new" program. When your player then changes schools he/she will need to waive (back to) the OMGHA program.

This is how I interpret the whole deal. Not sure I fully comprehend the differences between 2ci and 2cii yet but I will have to get this understood soon enough.

Good luck with your choice.

hockeyover40 · Post by **hockeyover40** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:31 pm

Do you read it as he/she would have to sit out a season of playing on the A team when he/she waivers back to OMGHA?

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:33 pm

Because we've already given more than enough years of service to youth hockey, and because our kids go to school in the district we live in, I don't even want to begin to interpret the rule. I want no part of it, we'll just get the kids ready for tryouts and tell them to do the best they can.

It's just going to create super teams. Do they all still need waivers? Will they still have to track down the two presidents and get them to mandatorily sign waiver forms? It's either a rule or not, waivers shouldn't play any part in it.

Let the recruiting begin!

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:35 pm

hockeyover40 wrote:Do you read it as he/she would have to sit out a season of playing on the A team when he/she waivers back to OMGHA?

that gets down to the individual association's bylaws or rules are. It'll will vary from association to association.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:47 pm

Come on. Someone (or 2 or 3) thinks this is a big deal or it wouldn't have been changed. Who and why? Also, someone is working hard right now to make something of this rule change. Who and what are they doing?

regsharp · Post by **regsharp** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:21 pm

DMom wrote:
hockeyover40 wrote:Do you read it as he/she would have to sit out a season of playing on the A team when he/she waivers back to OMGHA?
that gets down to the individual association's bylaws or rules are. It'll will vary from association to association.

well, I would think each association might try and keep these options available to their discretion as well, but with this (more forgiving) participation rule, the changing school scenario may be more concrete. Thus, maybe NO waiver then but have to abide by the following options (the 2ci and 2cii I was referring to):

c. Changing Schools; A player who newly enrolls in a school outside of the geographic boundary of their current Affiliate without a corresponding change of residence shall elect one of the following:
i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance; or
ii) be eligible at the "B" classification or lower in their new Affiliate of School Attendance for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school.

After rereading this a few times it seems to say once your affiliate is established and the player changes schools-- with a subsequent affiliate change-- without a physical address change you can i) stay in your now 'old' program, eligible for any level, and then play with the 'new' school the next season, again eligible for any level; or ii) go immediately to the new program, but be limited to 'B' and lower for that 1st season.

I'll find out soon enough how we're handling this within D3 (and if my interpretation is accurate). I would hope though that all districts would be required to now play the game the same.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:41 pm

regsharp wrote:
DMom wrote:
hockeyover40 wrote:Do you read it as he/she would have to sit out a season of playing on the A team when he/she waivers back to OMGHA?
that gets down to the individual association's bylaws or rules are. It'll will vary from association to association.
well, I would think each association might try and keep these options available to their discretion as well, but with this (more forgiving) participation rule, the changing school scenario may be more concrete. Thus, maybe NO waiver then but have to abide by the following options (the 2ci and 2cii I was referring to):

c. Changing Schools; A player who newly enrolls in a school outside of the geographic boundary of their current Affiliate without a corresponding change of residence shall elect one of the following:
i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance; or
ii) be eligible at the "B" classification or lower in their new Affiliate of School Attendance for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school.

After rereading this a few times it seems to say once your affiliate is established and the player changes schools-- with a subsequent affiliate change-- without a physical address change you can i) stay in your now 'old' program, eligible for any level, and then play with the 'new' school the next season, again eligible for any level; or ii) go immediately to the new program, but be limited to 'B' and lower for that 1st season.

I'll find out soon enough how we're handling this within D3 (and if my interpretation is accurate). I would hope though that all districts would be required to now play the game the same.

There is an actual scenario of a kid who changed schools the last two weeks. Two weeks can't count as a year, or was Dad just trying to beat the rule so he can say he was already a resident at an affiliate.

penman · Post by **penman** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:39 pm

Aside from "School Attendance" replacing "Residency" as the driver to association participation, it appears the Participation Rule still allows a program and/or player the option to waive out/in; does it not? Take a closer look (bolded text below). So if a player wanted to waive out of Cottage Grove to play at Woodbury (assuming both programs have an open waiver policy), they could do so long as they obtain all required signatures. Furthermore, there is no stipulation in this scenario as to what level they can play at in the association that they waive in to; correct?

Residency Rule to be replaced by Participation Rule

At it's Summer Board Meeting in St. Cloud, Minnesota Hockey replaced it's Residency Rule with a Participation Rule. Association participation will now be based on school attendance rather than residency. A grandfather clause was included to allow players to remain with their Association of residency for the 2009-10 season. Mite players will be able to register by either school location or residence. Please see the new rule below (full meeting minutes will be posted within two weeks).

IV. PARTICIPATION Version 5 (Revision g)

A. PARTICIPATION POLICY

MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. Members in good standing are to participate on teams from their local affiliate (local association) based on where they attend school and the established MH affiliate boundaries as defined in the Affiliate Agreements. Mite-aged players are allowed to participate based on residence.

B. PARTICIPATION RULE

1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the responsible district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:56 am

B. PARTICIPATION RULE

1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the responsible district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver.

Is there a clear written definition by Minnesota Hockey on the definition of the "affiliate boundaries" and why are the words "association boundaries" not used?

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:58 am

I'm pretty sure associations are official affiliates of Minnesota Hockey. I also believe in order to be an affiliate you must offer teams at all levels which could be an important distinction with the new rule. Blake was the only school that had an affiliate agreement even though they only had one team but they are no longer an affiliate and will not have a Bantam B team this fall.

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:57 am

seems to me that this makes things much easier for Blake and St. Thomas to field their own teams.

ALL the St. Thomas Bantam players are now REQUIRED!!! to play for the association in which St. Thomas is located. The school will just need to work something out with the association to place all their students on 1 team. No more having the players have to waive out of their association to play for their school.

it appears these schools got exactly what they wanted - and now as long as they work with their associations, can have thier own teams.

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:27 am

Interesting viewpoint. Could this be one of the real reasons for the change? But, don't see that happening for a couple of reasons.

Players that end up on St. Thomas varsity generally come from strong associations so it's unlikely they'd opt to play youth hockey at Sibley. If so, it would be a Sibley Bantam B team, wearing Sibley colors. It won't be a St. Thomas team. Can't see them forming a team with all the St. Thomas hockey players on one team as they'll have varied abilities and there won't be enough of them. It would also be silly to leave your home association during youth hockey years. High School comes soon enough.

Maybe Sibley (or Hopkins, or Richfield, or North Metro, or Mpls-Park, or Tartan) leadership can share their vision and plans. Glad all your families had a say in that.

Can we be getting to some of the real reasons for the residency rule change? Other far fetched ideas? Or, should we call them loopholes? Come on selfish ones. Now that you've dropped the bomb raise your hand and share your plan.

penman · Post by **penman** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:36 am

I don't think STA can carry a Bantam B team any longer.

If that's the case, and given the address of STA:
Saint Thomas Academy
949 Mendota Heights Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120

I assume youth hockey players (7th-9th grade) who attend STA can conceivably become 'primary property' of the Sibley Area Hockey Association. Under the new rule, the player has a one-time choice (going into the 2009-10 season) to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence which will continue through that player's youth career unless the player/family moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation. If they choose not to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence, they become property of Sibley Area Hockey Association (West St. Paul) for the 2009-10 season and beyond.

hockeyboys wrote:seems to me that this makes things much easier for Blake and St. Thomas to field their own teams.

ALL the St. Thomas Bantam players are now REQUIRED!!! to play for the association in which St. Thomas is located. The school will just need to work something out with the association to place all their students on 1 team. No more having the players have to waive out of their association to play for their school.

it appears these schools got exactly what they wanted - and now as long as they work with their associations, can have thier own teams.

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:50 am

Players that end up on St. Thomas varsity generally come from strong associations so it's unlikely they'd opt to play youth hockey at Sibley

You are missing the point. other than this first year - there is not an option. they don't get to choose to play where they live or where they go to school. Their affiliate is automatically where their school is located. Other than next year. SO for ALL subsequent years - if you are a student at St. Thomas - Sibley IS your association. No choice, unless you get a waiver out of sibley to play somewhere else.

The point here is that MN hockey redifined "community hockey" What used to be the community you lived in - it is now the community where your school is located.

Everyone keeps posting opinions like the players have some choice. They have no more choice than they did before - but now their associaiton is the one in which the school they attend is located - not where their home is located.

EZ · Post by EZ » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:54 am

Section 2ii says: A player attending an elementary, middle or junior high school whose geographical attendance area overlaps the geographical attendance areas of multiple high schools is a member of the MH Affiliate covering the location of the residence of the player's parent(s) or legal guardian(s).

Since STA students come from many different geographic regions, I read this to say that the STA hockey players can stay with their local associations and are not required to play for Sibley.

It should get very interesting come this fall!

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:08 pm

Section 2ii says: A player attending an elementary, middle or junior high school whose geographical attendance area overlaps the geographical attendance areas of multiple high schools is a member of the MH Affiliate covering the location of the residence of the player's parent(s) or legal guardian(s).

no - this is not what this says - you are reading out of context.

this section is for the situations where a Middle school feeds multiple high schools. For example - in Bloomington, a certain middle school could have kids that some will attend Jefferson, and some attend Kennedy. This part of the rule defines the association the player would belong to as the one in which their assigned high school would be. High schools define attendance areas by residence. So the players attending this middle school would belong to the association for that particular high school.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:24 pm

Private schools have their own ice. If a player going to St. Thomas must play in the Sibley Association, does that give the Sibley Association priority on access to the St. Thomas Ice. If not and the Sibley Association can not accommodate the St. Thomas players without sacrificing their own non-St. Thomas program, can Sibley deny the St. Thomas students or can the City of West St. Paul deny the St. Thomas student in favor of their own residence? Is the Minnesota Hockey in a position to tell a city how to manage its internal city affairs?

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:34 pm

[quote="observer"]

Maybe Sibley (or Hopkins, or Richfield, or North Metro, or Mpls-Park, or Tartan) leadership can share their vision and plans. Glad all your families had a say in that.

[quote]

Observer,

District 1 is probably the most effected by this yet we had no input on it. The Presidents in our district were unanimously against it. So I am not sure who was the driving parties behind. I have been told that it was the Discernment Committee, but I do not know who was pushing or driving the Discernment Committee down this path.

I can think of several odd situations in our instance that come up:

A kid goes to Our Lady of Grace church in Edina and waives out of Minneapolis hockey to Edina. At 7th grade, they begin attending Providence Academy. Do they now waive to Wayzata? What if they don't like Providence and switch to Benilde? Do they waive again to Saint Louis Park?

What about the kid that goes to Breck one year (would be a Hopkins waiver), Minneapolis public the next (no waiver), and then open enrolled in Edina the next year (Edina waiver). If this kid is an "A" level player is MN Hockey going to require him/her to play "B" the 2nd and 3rd years. Don't think that would be right for the kid.

What if STA, Breck, Benilde, Minnehaha, SPA, etc. begin 'highly recommending' their 7th graders waive into the local association. How do you think the locals are going to take it when their A team is 90% outsiders attending a private in the city (yet none of the private kids participate on the local boards)? With ice resources scarce, how do local associations handle providing additional ice? (granted this may not happen or if it does is several years out; but it could happen). What happens when the local public high school coach with association ties cuts all of the private school kids from their team ?

At what grade can a kid make a move? If a private starts in 7th grade, is a kid who moves three years from now going to be restricted to a "B" team when they enter 7th grade? Don't think you will be able to restrict that regardless of what the rule states.

While this policy has minimal impact on larger associations like Eden Prairie, Edina, Wayzata, White Bear, etc. that have deep pools of players; was any consideration given to the impact a policy has on smaller associations with high levels of private school kids? Does not appear that any thought was given on those lines.

While it does remain to be seen what will ultimately happen (and everything may be fine in the future), I just wish that there would have been more dialogue on this subject by those driving it and those that will be the most impacted by it (Southwest, Washburn, Highland Central, for instance).

Be interesting to see how it works out. In the end, I agree with what your basic statement was Observer - You play where you live (with exceptions granted based on unique circumstances and signed off on by losing association, gaining association, and district presidents).

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:39 pm

Maybe Sibley has enough of their own ice, as they're not a large association, and won't need more expensive St. Thomas ice. St. Thomas youth players still may not be able to skate at St. Thomas Arena which I know was one of the original goals of the selfish dads that baked this new definition up. My question is, has St. Thomas and Sibley discussed what they may, or may not, do together. Has Hopkins discussed with Blake and Breck, etc. I don't think many associations have been buddy-buddy with their community based private school/s to this point.

Let's hear the grand plans from the schools and their neighboring associations.

Can you say nightmare. Thanks for not listening to 98% of hockey families in Minnesota. I still don't believe this passed a vote of the District Directors.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:42 pm

Observer,

The final vote was 18 YES / 5 NO.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:51 pm

The final vote was 18 YES / 5 NO.

Anybody with a list of the districts/representative and their vote?

Should be available to all of us, correct?

Time to start writing to them!

lamplighter · Post by **lamplighter** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:00 pm

This rule change is perplexing and is obviously generating lots of good questions. Keep the dialogue rolling as we all have a vested interest and some lingering confusion too. Aside from the sweeping change of participation now being based on school location instead of residency, it appears the waiver process is still in place for programs that choose to waive players in or out. Perhaps some programs will discontinue their open waiver policy commensurate with this rule change.

Hockeyboys.... I took a closer look at the new rule, and it is evident someone attending St. Thomas Academy can opt to continue playing for their local association (as opposed to Sibley) provided they opt to do so going into the 2009-2010 season. While the rule requires declaration of option for the 2009-2010 season, it allows them to stay and play in their local/residential association in subsequent years. They will not automatically become property of Sibley in 2010-2011 provided they exercised their option going into this upcoming season. Here's the specific detail:

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008-2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate participation determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation.

But it begs the question, "so what happens to those STA kids who played on the Bantam B team - outside their affiliate of residence - during the 2008-2009 season?" Are they now considered Sibley players for 2009-2010 since they did not play in their local association this past year?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com