Lifelongbender

They are saying that they plan to have a 12U girls' teams up there, so I think they plan to play. Lord knows what that means, though - it might be positive thinking. We may none of us get to play at this rate.

This is entirely true. Every sport is insane nowadays.

Fantastic question. I bet there's a near unlimited amount of uncertainty among people managing open businesses of all kinds.

You may be right that my last sentence, which was at least partially tongue in cheek anyway, is a little strong. Honestly if it were up to me we would be forging ahead more or less without restrictions. I'm generally that kind of guy. I don't disagree with your hope that the health department might increase the permitted number of attendees at an event. But it is my understanding that the guidelines are pretty specific about the numbers, and the interpretation you say that rinks are using is specifically incorrect by my reading of the guidelines on the PA website, which includes this passage in the section entitled "Guidance Applicable to All Sporting Events": Each individual game or practice at a complex must adhere to the gathering occupancy limits (25 in yellow, 250 outdoors and 25 indoors in green), and the facility as a whole may not exceed 50% of total occupancy otherwise permitted by law. Whether or not the guidelines are reasonable or constitutional or whatever other argument can be made, they're pretty clear. For instance, the following is from the Targeted Mitigation Order - Frequently Asked Questions document on the PA government website: Does the 25 person limit apply to per court/field or for the whole facility for large sport facilities? What if the facility has dividers set up between courts and fields? A facility that is able to create opportunities for discrete events may have 25 people per event space as long as there is sufficient division between spaces. For example, a conference facility may utilize moveable walls to create separate spaces or sporting facilities may use floor to ceiling dividers. However, the facility must ensure that common spaces like lobby areas, bathrooms, and hallways are cleaned frequently and visitors are not congregating. Does this apply to recreational sports? Recreational sports must follow the current Order's limitation on events and gatherings. For indoor games or practices, 25 people or less can attend. For outdoor games or practices, 250 people or less can attend. At all times, spectators and (when not engaged in play) players should keep social distancing and wear masks. What I think that some rinks are relying upon is the idea that the boards constitute a barrier that may permit a second group of 25 to attend per the first paragraph in the above excerpt. That may even fly, although the guidelines specifically use the phrase "floor to ceiling dividers". I think the YMCA is just being cautious, and complying with the strictest interpretation of the rule is a no harm situation at this time. My fear is that the rinks that are failing to comply with these requirements (and right now there is no specific exception for ice rinks that allows additional people to be spectators at the indoor events that I can find), legal and/or reasonable or not, are going to doom us to not having a season when someone gets sick and contact tracing, or some other investigation, reveals that they attended an event that did not comply with the requirements. The best argument that the rinks are reading this right is the simple fact that everyone knows they are operating this way and none of them have yet been sanctioned for it. So you may be right that the interpretation they are using is more or less acceptable in the eyes of the state, but an honest reading of the requirements as they are written certainly suggests that the rules could be enforced much, much more strictly than they are right now.

For the record, there's nothing particularly controversial being done at the YMCA. In general, they're just doing what the guidelines require. Which, I guess, is controversial in the sense that no other rink in the area is actually doing so.

Agree 100% with this. Whether or not masks are actually effective, and whether the government should be in the business of telling us to wear them or not, if they're required by the government as a prerequisite for returning to hockey, it's a small price to pay for the resumption of the sport. I don't like masks, I don't like wearing mine, and I strongly doubt that they are actually effective in protecting individuals, but if I have to wear one so my kids can play this sport they love, so be it. We will see what effect there is of not requiring them when the rinks in the area who aren't (we all know who they are) get called out. I haven't been there recently, but one rink in particular has reportedly changed their tune on requiring masks recently.

I don't think the windows have been replaced. I wonder if it's just that we are typically only seeing them in the dark...

There are a few well-known western Pennsylvania coaches who have been saying loudly that there is almost no chance that there will be a season of any kind, by the way. One of them said as much directly to me. They may, or may not, have insider information.

The only thing is, how can USA Hockey make a more defined approach to the start up? The biggest risk isn't that USAH will shut down the season. The biggest risk is that the Governor will. USAH can't do anything to prevent, or predict, that. Left to its own devices, it is certain that the hockey world would play, right? Everyone wants to play, and there's a huge amount of money involved. Total cancellation of a season would likely spell the end of a few rinks in our area. The thing about opting out at any point is really difficult. How would an organization plan for that possibility? How could they know what their costs will be, and their income, so that they can sustain such an option? I know the organization we are part of has been privately discussing the possibility of prorated refunds, but it's hard to see how they'll pay them and remain solvent. It's a very difficult situation. What you described is, as far as I can tell, what Massachusetts is planning to do. But that all doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the government decides we can't have practices at all, no matter if that decision is justified or not. @Danner27 is thinking along the same lines I am in his post above.

Bethel Park/YMCA is supposed to have Livebarn by the end of August, if there are no delays due to government shutdowns. They are also saying that the prohibition on spectators might last for several months, by the way.

Right, @Denis Lemiuex, and no timekeeper, either, or penalty box people.

I must admit that I heard echoes of some of what you have said on this board in this article, @The King.

I've been to Alpha, Ice Castle, and YMCA in Bethel. Ice Castle had, at that time, no actual restrictions at all effectively in place. Absolutely nobody was wearing a mask or even attempting to social distance during the few days I was there in the past few weeks. Alpha was about half and half but this was several weeks ago now so I don't know what they are doing at this time. YMCA is enforcing the 20 player limits, requiring masks to enter the building, and not allowing parents into the building except to tie skates and then leave the building. Parents have not been permitted to watch tryouts or any other skates there at all. They're taking the restrictions they have in place quite seriously.

This is exactly right, @fafa fohi. While masks may or may not be effective, and it may or may not be reasonable to force everyone to wear them, and it may or may not be an infringement upon our rights, etc., if wearing masks is the (honestly fairly small though annoying) price we have to pay to get on with our lives, more or less, then you just do it. We have been discussing elsewhere, among myriad posts about what a high opinion many of this board's members have about each other, how disregarding the order by just one or two rinks/organizations may cost all of Western PA a season. The short version of all of this is that you have to do what you have to do. Having said that, @Scooby Doo, nothing about that makes me happy, either.

I think I agree with all of this, @aaaahockey.

It's been posted before but it still bears discussion when it comes back up.

We spend a good bit of time talking about the costs of hockey, and where the money goes, on this board. To the end of fostering a reasonable conversation, this article from The Hockey Think Tank is a worthwhile read: https://thehockeythinktank.com/2019/03/26/the-cost-of-aaa-hockey/ The Hockey Think Tank always has good content - well thought out and well written blog posts. This one, agree with all of it or not, will resonate with a good number of folks on this message board.

Careful, boys - we almost reverted to talking about hockey right there. I can't imagine how that would even work.

Possibly the best post in the history of this site.

I have to disagree here. While tryout fees may have the unintended, or at best partially intended, effect of reducing the "tune up mentality", they're definitely used to generate income for the organizations. For many organizations they are a huge windfall, since the fee they charge is spread over (in most seasons) 50-60 kids for two hours of ice, after which a depressing number of players do not take their placements and are therefore not a further cost to the organization. It's pure profit. Also, if we are being honest, I'd bet that very few people who are reading this board know more than a couple of players who only try out at their "home" organization every season, whatever the costs may be. Players do this for a variety of reasons, some the classical team shopping, some tuning up, some to have a few on-ice sessions with friends, a good number because their parents think they are better players than they actually are, and some for no obvious reason at all. But a high percentage of kids (no good way to estimate it, but half or more would be completely unsurprising to me) try out at more than one organization every season. If you're curious about how being a 501(c)3 affects profitability, you only need to demand to see a balance sheet from the organization. If you can get it, you'll note that most local organizations have a large amount of money in the bank. Some reserve is obviously needed - this summer, organizations have been unable to collect any money at all from season fees, on-ice clinic fees, etc., and needed money to keep operating - but I have seen a couple of these from different organizations and I can tell you that the ones I saw would surprise you. Without making claims I can't substantiate about organization officials using the money themselves, I will say that I suspect that most parents have no idea how little board members pay at most organizations for their kids to play a season.

My kids went to tryouts for one school program and three different amateur programs between them. Nothing at all out of the ordinary compared to previous years, except that they were limiting the number of kids on the ice at once at two of the three amateur tryouts, and the lateness of the tryout dates.

The tryouts we have attended have been well attended as well. Our organization is very close to the same number of players trying out this season as last season.

Thanks for clearing that up, because honestly I couldn't find information that was unambiguous and non-contradictory online.

There are conflicting reports online regarding the accuracy of the tests currently available. Just a survey of the results on the internet suggests that a healthy skepticism is appropriate, but that it may be that one or more of the tests are actually truly accurate. I don't think that anyone really knows how accurate any of them are in the field under working conditions. I do remember reading (I thought it was in the New York Times, but I can't find the article, so I can't be sure) that the tests in use at that time (probably this was in April) produced as many as 30% false positives. The article went on to discuss how a false positive is probably better than a false negative in the sense that if you take precautions because of a false positive, that's far better than taking risks because you erroneously believe you are definitely negative. This is a basic principle of this sort of testing. The article also went on to discuss at length that the dangers of a high number of false positives include overly negative assessments of public exposure, and the simple fact that even if everyone were negative, you'd still believe that 30% of people were positive, thereby preventing lifting of any public safety measures. If that 30% was correct at the time, which I cannot prove, and which number seemed stupidly high to me at the time and still does, one has to hope that with everyone working on a test method the accuracy of the testing has improved substantially.

@Denis Lemiuex, you couldn't be more right. The number of bizarre scenarios that can be generated from this document is breathtaking, and fun. For instance, what's not mentioned in it at all is that, under scenario 2, where they permit 25 people per half ice, there's only one bench in a half sheet of ice. Only one team in a cross ice game can put their players somewhere off-ice. How is that going to work at ANY level, much less U16 and U18? How do you manage penalties in such a stupid situation? One team won't even have a bench for their players to serve a penalty on. Surreal.