Lifelongbender

I don't think that either of them entirely shut down at all. I know at least one was operating quietly the entire time, but for some of that time you had to know the right people.

I doubt that a particular ice rink in the South Hills will slow down at all. they hardly did the last time.

The wording as WPXI reported it specifically includes recreational sports. To wit: Pretty clear to me. It'll be interesting how they respond to the fictional interpretations of the rules the rinks used in the last shutdown to stay open.

Now this is a reasonable response. I understand your take on what the science is on masks, but for many people the continuous give and take of "masks work" followed by "masks don't work" that drives our daily news cycles is probably very confusing. A person could be forgiven for not really knowing what to think about masks given that give and take. And, for that matter, about shutdowns of schools and the like (read, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration). It is not at all the case that there aren't reputable scientists and health professionals who disagree with shutdowns, or mandatory mask wearing. While it may be true that the majority, or a plurality, of professionals agree on these things (though I don't know how we would determine the validity of that specific claim, because nobody can agree on who is responsible among journalists, either), it's not the case that any of the measures being taken are settled science, or make cost/benefit analysis sense, either. You don't get to cite scientists that agree with you without also recognizing that scientists exist who have opposing viewpoints - if a scientist is only credible because he agrees with you, or with the majority, your case is already lost. You disagree with science based upon the merit of their actual data, not upon some sort of Nielson rating system. Personally, I don't know if masking works. I have read a huge amount of writing online by scientists on both sides of this issue, but as I have written elsewhere on this site, I think that mask wearing is a small price to pay to get them to permit our kids to play hockey. You were right when you said "It's also hard to convince people to abide by restrictions when we don't even know if they will be effective. I get that. This is a complicated issue that has good arguments on both sides." However, there are a number of people who do not agree that either masking or stopping of gatherings is common sense. While it may be that these steps are our best bet at slowing the spread of the virus, there are many people who seem to think that restricting gatherings in order to slow the spread, in particular, isn't worth the cost to society. I'm not sure, myself, what the right answer to this question is, other than to say that it seems to me that the government telling you that you can't have cousins over for Christmas is fundamentally problematic. To me, these sorts of gatherings in particular are not a public health risk in the way that a concert would be. All of these things are the sorts of things that are supposed to be open to healthy discussion in our society. It's my fear that nothing like open discussion has occurred on either of these topics at any level at any time. It certainly has never occurred here. Which I wish was because we are a hockey board. But nothing like discussions of hockey has occurred here in months, either.

Wow. What an asshole way to respond to this. I get that you're trying to make a point. I get that plenty of posters here have been really nasty to you, and each other. But this isn't any way to promote positive discussion or reasonable debate. You've managed to lower yourself to the old King's level. Good on you.

I know that, without school to keep them socially engaged, my kids are relying on ice hockey practices and games for pretty much all of their interaction with their friends. This situation really sucks. Hopefully the governor/government will make reasonable decisions regarding hockey.

No. Sadly we cannot.

The Governor released an update to the mandate that responded to the portion of the CDC recommendations saying that if masks can't be worn due to the protective equipment or level of exertion they should not be worn. That was Friday. So any "I saw a game where nobody was wearing masks" claim about this is now unimportant. My son's team played two midget games this weekend. At both, some of the players were wearing masks despite the fact that they weren't required anymore for personal preference reasons. At both games both of the refs were wearing them, at least most of the time.

@Danner27, you do realize that your post there is an argument for not playing hockey at all, and no, in fact, an argument for not wearing masks while playing, right? I mean you do realize that is how the government would respond to that? I have to assume it's your position that hockey should be shut down, then. I respectfully disagree. As long as they're allowed to, my kids will want to keep playing, mask or no mask, and I'd bet that almost every player in the region will take that same position. Once the enforcement effort is clear it will level out.

I expect it to get shut down no matter what, but mask compliance will be one of the stated reasons when it does.

Honestly it's becoming so tiresome to read posts on this board that its value as a discussion forum is practically nil.

I guess I expect that this mask thing, like everything else, will work itself out after a few weeks of playing under it (assuming we get a few weeks of playing), but this is a fair question. It's likely that enforcement of the mask mandate will vary widely between teams. How do you force your players to play at a disadvantage if the other team has a large number of players not wearing masks, medical excuse or not? I really think this will turn out to be no big deal, like it did in Michigan, but there are concerns. Hopefully coaches will try to comply.

It's true that there were several games postponed this week, including a number between local teams in the Pittsburgh sense, but most of the games that have been postponed are between Pittsburgh area teams and teams in West Virginia. The second of the two orders made travel to West Virginia for purposes other than a commute for work or medical treatment essentially impossible.

To be clear, this is a moral and, for many of us, a legal duty.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the order is reasonable. I'm not even arguing that it is constitutional (though the courts have long recognized that rights can be reasonably limited in respect of the welfare of the nation as a whole). I am simply saying that the claim that the order isn't a legally binding thing is false. We can understand that it might not meet the criteria required to be considered Constitutional if tested by a court, but we must still understand that it is the law of the land until that time. The rinks we all depend upon have everything riding on this.

In all fairness, professional players are tested frequently and can control their exposure better than people at large because their job is going to the stadium, and not to an office building. This is not an entirely fair criticism because it compares apples to oranges.

The fact that there isn't an enforcement mechanism for some of this, especially that which may occur in a private home, doesn't mean it isn't a legal order. I'm not sure that I think such things are or at least should be constitutional, but the order does have the force of law, even if it can't be enforced in some situations. You can be denied entry to a business for not wearing a mask; a business can lose their license for not complying with the order. Believe what you want. We are going to get shut down completely soon enough, but it's you guys who refuse to go along that are going to make it that much sooner. Wearing a mask is a small price to pay for your kids to get to play, even if it is ridiculous.

A heartfelt essay about a topic that's been discussed a bit here on the board in the past. This sort of thing needs to be out there. https://thehockeythinktank.com/2020/11/16/decades-later-chicago-youth-hockey-scandal-brought-to-light/ The Hockey Think Tank is a great resource, by the way, in general.

Man I hope you're right. At least this weekend.

I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Like it or not face masking is mandated by the state government. From the header of the recent order: From section 2 of the order: My emphasis on the above quotes. Obviously the list of circumstances continues ad nauseum. For the record, this question and answer are part of the FAQ that was released yesterday about the mask mandate: Again, emphasis mine. Whatever you may think about the reasonableness or efficacy of masking in controlling this outbreak, it is a fact that our state government has decided that you must wear masks in public places indoors whether or not social distancing can be maintained. There cannot be any doubt that until tested by a Court and then vacated by the Court this order must be considered a legal and binding one. Any claim otherwise is incorrect. For the record I doubt strongly that masking at any time is worthwhile, and I am certain that masking on ice, while possible and not really dangerous as some have claimed, is ridiculous and has no merit. I just wanted to make sure that there aren't people who think that this is somehow not a legally binding order. You, your organization, and the ice rink, can all be cited for violation of this order (although it's not clear to me from this order/FAQ response what the possible consequences for an individual might be from a legal standpoint). There is an exemption for medical issues in Section 3. It's a safe bet that nobody will wear a mask on the ice, and refer to that when called out for it. Eventually there will be a shutdown because they'll say we aren't complying with "commonsense measures to control the outbreak" or something that means the same thing. My kids have games on both days of this weekend, but I'd be willing to give at least even odds that we don't even get to play this weekend, much less any weekend afterwards.

It's correct that this is not a rink thing, but a regional thing, but for the sake of completeness YMCA has issued the same requirement for masks on the ice.

The government will just say that if you can't play in masks, hockey should not be happening. But, with all due respect to @Danner27, with whom I do not have a beef, this is just wrong. Players can, and have been, play in masks. My daughter's team practiced in full masks last night, and they skated quite a few Herbies in order to get ready for wearing them in games. I don't like it - and the players will hate it even more than I will hate enforcing it - but it can be done, and if my beer league started requiring them, I'd wear them and keep playing, if the alternative is not playing at all. As for spectators, it's clear from the order that they're concerned about indoor air quality as a vector in transmission. Agree with this or not, I expect spectators to be banned at hockey games pretty soon.

The universal answer to this question in this region is Binnie's.

I'm sure everyone here either has, or soon will, see the attached file, probably from their organization or business manager. Is this a prelude to stopping hockey entirely for a while? Or maybe to banning spectators from the stands again? Is there anyone connected enough to have insight on what PAHL is thinking? Quick Shot_Covid Update 11.5.20.pdf

I've been there for a couple PIHL games - JV games - and they weren't actively checking anyone, though we did see a rink staffer come through once at one of the games. I'd note that our spectators, and those of the opponents, were generally wearing masks and observing reasonable distancing, so that may be why they didn't complain.