Lifelongbender

This is the same question I have been pondering. We've been told by our JV coaches that they'll be playing 5v5 instead of the 4v4 with two half game thing they'd been discussing, which only makes sense given the ruling. But what will happen now with varsity level hockey? I'm guessing they'll wait to make a decision until they know if the appeals court will grant a stay of the order - starting and then stopping would be catastrophic. I really don't know how to even guess what will happen with varsity.

We can never know, can we? (I know that you think you do know, but honestly we just don't. My level of blind faith in masking is not as high as yours, and my science is less about confirmation bias than yours, too. Just because you believe something to be true, even based upon whatever evidence you can cite, doesn't make it so, because in this case there is only one trial, and the data is inherently inconclusive.) For the record, I read his post not as implying that nursing home deaths were less significant, but that they are a special case, and not the population at large. Not less valua

We have to wait and see, but even the rinks that were following the sports rules as written (the very few rinks) are allowing full roster scrimmages. I think a season, at least of some sort, is nearly certain right now. If the question was really "how likely are we to have a 'normal' season", that chance I put at 50/50.

This is an entirely reasonable response. I have to say that typically the federal government - and government in general, at least in our system - is supposed to make most decisions based on cost/benefit analysis. By that measure it is hard to see how the shutdowns were justified, They are only justified by the argument that saving a relatively small number of lives is worth the cost to the economy. This is a discussion more suited to a political forum than to this one. It is obvious that the death rate has decreased. It's even obvious that they know a bit more about treatment now - for i

Sigh. We have no way of knowing what would have happened under any set of restrictions that differ materially from the ones they imposed. @Quinlan2020, your sentence "The fools that deem them unconstitutional do not acknowledge that" has a MAJOR flaw in it given your intended argument - whether the restrictions enacted were constitutional is not determined by whether they were effective. You seem to have that distinction entirely confused. Even if you were right about the effectiveness of the measures taken, it is still quite possible that they are unconstitutional. We all understand your

Yeah, that's a sample size of one. We have no idea why he cut the player. I know Mike Schall and this statement means nothing. At all.

Imagine how much it will cost the State to have shut down every highway construction project in the entire Commonwealth. I can't even guess but it'll be substantial. In the tens of millions is easily possible. This is before the private business lawsuits that may come up. The financial fallout for the states and the federal government is going to be unfathomable.

This is absolutely true. He's the best coach I have ever been on the ice with.

Especially since they keep telling us that there will be a vaccine in November, Wait, December...

I totally understand why you wrote this, and there's even a part of me that agrees. I have told my players and their parents that if wearing a mask is the price we have to pay to play hockey, then they have to wear them, because it's not a steep price. But it is also true that we are where we are because the Governor, for better or for worse, and with intentions either noble or otherwise, overstepped his bounds with the restrictions he imposed. Even if it is true that the measures he took were appropriate, they were extremely burdensome and unpopular, and at least one federal judge has fo

If this is truly the case, I'm happy that we don't have to wait around for a bill that actually relaxes restrictions on indoor youth sports to pass the legislature, get vetoed on the last day Wolf can wait to veto, and then go back for an override vote that it may or may not pass.

Perhaps. We can never know, because we have no frame of reference for the inverse outcome. If the restrictions had lasted only long enough to get in front of hospital capacity, it's worth noting, they would never have been tested in court at all.

Yes, that makes sense. I think we are thinking the same way here. It's a good set of questions. And they'd make for some AWESOME barguments. I can tell you this, though - as a coach, when they allow us to go to full benches and normal hockey, I'll agree at that time no matter what.

I understand why you asked this, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to keep playing with 9 players on a bench and halves instead of periods for an entire season when the option of playing normally is open. If what you were hinting at is the question of how the games played under the weird rules will be counted with respect to team record and player statistics, that's a very interesting question, and I agree that there will be arguments aplenty on that one should the situation present itself.

There isn't any kind of a useful point anywhere in here at all. I'll just say this: saying that a governor undertook an unconstitutional action is not accusing them of a crime. In this context, it is that the constitutionally designed mechanism of review of his actions was performed. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a credible defense in my house with my kids, much less in a courtroom. You said that there is no way to know for sure when the right time is to impose such restrictions. There may a scientific/popular/political answer to that question (though I do not believe that a consensu