Jump to content

Lifelongbender

Members
  • Posts

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by Lifelongbender

  1. As I have said above, the positions of those who support the rule change are well-reasoned. I don't think this rule change is cataclysmic, but I have the following reasons for disagreeing with it, some of which are good ones and some of which are not as good. In no particular order: There is no justification for allowing delayed offsides at the high school level but not allowing amateur players of that age delayed offsides. Let's all play the same game. While I agree that highly skilled players can perform a regroup and retain possession of the puck, @GrumpyOldPucker noted that the Russians tortured opponents with their regroups. Even their most skilled opponents couldn't do regroups like the Russians. Just because Makharov and Kharlomov could do this, should we expect all players to be able to? I don't know if I am on board with that. You do different sorts of regroups if Letang and Dumoulin are on the ice than if it's Ruhwedel and Maata. Coaches are free to coach their players to regroup in the neutral zone, and in this argument thereby dominate opponents at will, if they like, whether delayed offsides exists or not. I fail to see how removing an option from the game enhances creativity. It just requires everyone to play the game one particular way at all times. If coaches saw a huge advantage to the Russian style regroups, more teams would be playing that style now, even before the rule change. The fact that you don't see it being played that way already tells you something. We can, of course ,debate whether the coaches are correct in their perceptions here, but kids regrouped rather than dump the puck all the way through peewee under the old system because they didn't have delayed offsides, so coaching bantams to do it would have been trivial if a coach saw a way to gain a competitive advantage. Games I have watched this season have taken longer, and flowed less well, than they did last season. That may well - probably will - change as teams get used to the new rules. I'm not saying that hockey is better when players dump the puck rather than trying to do something more possession-oriented in the neutral zone, or even further back. I am saying that removing that option doesn't make the game better in my opinion, because there are isolated and possibly rare situations where dumping a puck makes sense. Again, maybe most or all of these concerns are going to lessen as players get used to this new rule. Maybe my biggest objection to this change is that touch-up offsides is just how hockey is played in my book, as a lifelong fan. But my first bullet is not going to fade away - if touch up offsides is bad for player development and bad for the game, why permit it at any level, or allow players to do it with their HS teams but not their amateur teams? The rules should be the same for everyone. Finally, for the record I think that not permitting a team on the PK is not a huge change. Although it can make it harder for the defending team to change (especially in the second period), in the games I have watched this season this rule change hasn't really been an issue. The kids have been aware of the the rule at HS and at amateur and generally acted appropriately. I still believe, though, that the rules should be the same for HS hockey as for amateur.
  2. Goalie coaches especially are a highly individual choice. You can see that with goalies even at the highest level - NHL goalies frequently have issues when their goalie coach changes for some reason. You really need to take the time and talk to the coaches. Shane Clifford is a highly regarded goalie coach in the area, but there are others as well.
  3. I don't disagree with what you said here, except that it's a matter of perspective. Whether a tournament is worth attending is a matter of what your goals are. I have found that going out of town for a tournament is a nice team building thing, and the kids (and the parents) generally have a great time. They're not a great way to find competitive games because they're hit and miss on that, and as we noted, you often end up playing someone you could have played at home. In other words, you don't go to a tournament as part of building your national bound or AAA resume. That's true. But there are maybe some other good reasons to go to them, for some teams. If my kids were on one of those "AAA" or "AA" teams our area seems to have such an abundance of on paper, I'd agree. They play so many games on those teams that adding a tournament seems silly.
  4. Ain't that the truth? My kids have gone to many tournaments, in one case as far as Annapolis, only to face three PAHL teams in a tournament more than once.
  5. There is a committee that meets, but maybe not today, exactly. They look at the results of the games. Most teams will remain where they are, but some teams will be moved either because of the outcomes of their games, or because they appealed and demonstrated through extra games that they do not belong where they were placed. Initial placements are based on a combination of proposed placement (from the organization) and a database of players they keep for reference. Then discussion occurs at the meetings about teams that had unexpected placement game outcomes. To be honest, I agree with those who have said on this discussion board elsewhere that PAHL generally does a good job on placements. There are always teams that either don't get placed right, or for whom there really wasn't a good place to put them, but by and large the system works as well as it can given the huge number of moving parts.
  6. Both begin and end in October and, say, late February or early March. Many, if not most, players do both school and amateur. Amateur games are on weekends, and PIHL games are on weekdays, so it's generally manageable.
  7. sigh. No desire to bury the truth at all. If you look back to the discussion we had about this topic when it happened, I'm sure you can discern my opinion on it. My desire was to avoid this silly discussion, which literally has nothing to do with the St. Margaret Tournament.
  8. Sort of. Mort, the longtime BP coach, left the organization. He was replaced by a longtime BP assistant coach.
  9. The Quest battle camps are a great investment. Both of my kids loved them.
  10. I don't remember a second collapse in the 2010s, no. But stranger things have happened.
  11. Well, that is hilarious on so many levels. You do have to appreciate their sweaters, though. Always been a fan of their uniforms.
  12. I have a friend who does some teaching out there who has had issues with both the rising cost of ice and the ice schedule issue. I think this is entirely correct.
  13. I'm just riffing here, but Black Bear could be the best thing that ever happened to Rostraver. I'm not saying anyone is talking about that. I am saying they should be.
  14. You know, this all sounds dangerously like USA Hockey moving in the right direction for once. I'm not sure how to process this.
  15. Yes, @carroll81 and @Not Gam, that's exactly how they were calling it back a few years ago. I wasn't very precise with my language.
  16. Are you saying that they're having people sign waivers at the door? But no masking or other measures? Ah, yes, I see on their website that they are requiring an online waiver before entering the facility.
  17. A couple years ago some officials were enforcing this, at least in the preseason. They were penalizing the third man into a battle. It will be interesting to see if this gets widespread enforcement this season.
  18. Well, I was just wondering if we could get updates about the current policies at rinks around the region. I'm not interested in anyone's opinions about masking or vaccines here, or political views. Just wanting to understand the policies of rinks in the area. It's my thinking that we are going to be in the same boat as last season - coaches wearing masks on benches, players not required to wear them on the ice, and possibly restrictions on parents in rinks. I don't see this season evolving any differently than last season. I thought that starting a conversation would give us all a place to note rink restrictions and policies as they are revised and released.
  19. I heard yesterday that Mount Lebanon is requiring masking inside the rink building for everyone starting today. Masks are not required on the ice. They are required in lobby, stands, locker rooms, and bathrooms. I figured this would happen again as the season started up, and it's worth noting that Lebo is a municipality-owned rink, and was probably the most restrictive of all rinks last season. Has anyone heard of similar requirements at other rinks? I'm betting YMCA won't be far behind on this. The Y just released a policy for their summer campers at the Y building requiring masking.
  20. I just went to MHR's 2020-2021 rankings and selected a random team in PAHL for this example. I am not affiliated with the Badgers. In the listing Allegheny Badgers (#757) 16U AA (PA) the three digit number 757 is the team number assigned by PAHL to that team. If that is the question you are asking the answer is yes.
  21. All, if we take a look at the top of the page ay MHR, it includes this note: Lord knows where the data that's up there actually came from, but I'm guessing that it's legacy data for the most part.
×
×
  • Create New...